[Lohr]

I agree with you that morality is absolute, but I don't think it is right for you to bash those who believe otherwise.

just because someone thinks that morality is relative doesn't mean that you have to compare them to menstrating 12 year olds....if 12 year olds even menstrate

[BenElijah]

Morality is relative (but since that is merely my opinion, not stated as an objective fact, we here defeat the Relativist paradox.

I subscribe to the view of emotivism (Ayer/Stevenson) which basically states that to varying degrees, morality is simply a function of our own emotional reaction to something. For example, if we walked in on a man having intercourse with a frozen chicken, most of us would have an emotional reaction to that. I certainly would react with a not inconsiderable degree of disgust and fascination. It is therefore reasonable to form an immediate moral reaction to this. I, in my own right, consider that act immoral. Others may form a moral theory based upon the idea that intercourse with a chicken is wrong.

However, this situation is complicated somewhat by the fact that I have a separate philosophical, and specifically ethical theory, where logic serves to defeat this emotional reaction for the prize of emotively contributing (or more accurately, serving as inspiration) to my communicated and consistent theory. Emotivism still holds however, since this theory is based upon other notions, and critically forged thereof. Such is the case with all consistent philosophical theories, from recognised genius' like Descartes, Kant and many of the earlier post-modern philosophers, to upstarts with too much free time like myself. In my case, my main emotivism is a hatred of war and a love of liberty. I can justify that till the cows come home, but the fact that it is there in the first place is simply a reflection of my personality and character.

This is the key thing therefore. If emotivism affects our philosophy, ethics and morality, then it is necessarily different for each individual, assuming that two mental conditions in two different humans cannot be identical, something that I think we can all agree on. It stands to reason therefore, that a held morality is merely a function of the emotional state of the beholder, which varies with, and is relative to each different human. This lends itself to relativism.

However, this brings us on to the question of validity.

Most people will agree here that in order to judge something, we need to have pre-determined notions of the parameters by which we are judging. For example, in order to judge the height of two mountains, we need to have a pre-determined notion of the concept of "height" in our minds. Ignore the self-evident semantic issue here for the sake of this example. If we are to judge which version of morality is best, we need to have a version of morality ourselves, and it seems clear that we would judge relative to our own, e.g. "your morality is closest to my own, I consider yours true and a different one to be false". The problem occurs when these statements are made to be objective. In other words, I could quite easily state that my morality is an objective truth, yet my complete opposite could do the same and there is no way of demonstrating which is more true. This reduces the notion of debate to something of a sport, or a comparison between views as well as a recruiting grounds, one hopes based upon the strength of logic used (though in this day and age I fear we have become too dependent upon publicity and the like). Incidentally, I base that on the premise that there is no objective qualitative truth with which to compare and verify differing views. Since none has been found in the 3000 year history of philosophy, and ignoring the concept of God, a good case can be made for there being no objective truth, it would seem to be that relativism holds "true", in so far as I can state that relativistically .

Well it can be said that absolutes do exist - such is the case with things like mathematics and truth.

enlight: Truth is a major difficulty as stated above. Your "get out of jail free card" is a belief in God. As for mathematics, that relies on the assumption that ours in the only internally consistent logical system, yet even within that system, there is no logical barrier to the existence of another (Mod 2 being a partial example). Note that even if there were such a barrier, since it would reside only within this system it would not be a valid refutation of that notion. The concept of another internally consistent logical system is seemingly borne out by certain theories in cosmology that I shaln't go into here.

Please note that by referring to Aristotolian concepts (namely virtue theory) and Kantian moral absolutes, you are subscribing yourselves to critically flawed ideas. For example, Kant assumes that if something is qualitatively true in one context, it is true for another. Yet in that context, the premise has changed, therefore so has the conclusion! Take it further and you see that the conclusion has contradicted one of the premises! . Most people believe that qualitative absolutes are a fallacy, yet Kant is still taken seriously, in all likelihood because of the completeness and detail of his work.

That's really the best question to ask people who claim that morality is absolute. They can never give an example that holds up to any scrutiny because morality is relative. That's the whole argument right there.

Vivisekt: Bang on.

I believe morality is absolute. Everyone has a concious that basically tells someone when they do something wrong. I supremely doubt that anyone has done something that they felt horrible about doing. Even if nobody knows about it, they still feel bad. At least I know I have.

Visage of Glory: That argument lends itself to a relativist position, since you have incited ones own conscious. Unless you claim that conscious remains the same for all humans (a difficult position to maintain in my opinion, to say the least), then the conclusion of your point would seem to be moral relativism.

You claim that because actions are neutral morality is relative. That is false. There is a clear difference between good motives and bad motives, and that is a big part of the justification of absolute morality.

enlight: The difficulty with this is that it is relative to the beholder. It may be absolute to you, but you are trying to make an objective statement with it, which is problematic.

Yes, I agree with that. There are times when absolutes are unecessary

I'm not sure the question of necessity is entirely relavent here, though I may be wrong. It seems to me that we are discussing a philosophical problem, its results are merely consequential, and influential imo.

I would say that morality is absolute.....ethics are relative

Lohr: One assumes the definition of "absolute" to mean true accross the universe, IOW, in all contexts.

History has backed up the ideal of morality as being absolute, and many of the specific examples as existing in all cultures.

BobSally: You have drawn a link between all cultures, presumably attempting to state that cultural relativism is false, but that is sufficient, not necessary. Because there are similarities between all human cultures does not preclude the possibility of their existence. There is no logical barrier, in other words, you are not inciting a necessary condition here.

[enLight]

enlight: Truth is a major difficulty as stated above. Your "get out of jail free card" is a belief in God.

First off, let me say that I thoughly enjoyed reading your response on relative morality. But on to the topic...

I disagree that a belief in God is the "get out of jail free card" for truth to be absolute. I think belief in God is one reason, but it is not required. Let us take the example of the Earth being round. It is absolute. There was a time when humans whole-heartedly believed the world was flat. But did that make it true? No. Humans could not invent that truth.

As for mathematics, that relies on the assumption that ours in the only internally consistent logical system...[to save space]...borne out by certain theories in cosmology that I shaln't go into here.

I agree that there are some abstract theories that challenge the absolute nature of mathematics. But let us remember that what can be true in the realm of the theoretical is not always true in the realm of the practical. Take Geometry as an example. In theory, a perfect circle or a perfect square is possible. But in practice, they are not.

Please note that by referring to Aristotolian concepts (namely virtue theory)...you are subscribing yourselves to critically flawed ideas.

Of course. Every philosophical theory has flaws. That's the consequence of using reason - with the right postulates and a little wit, one can justify (and disprove) any situation. It all boils down to a matter of faith.

[BenElijah]

First off, let me say that I thoughly enjoyed reading your response on relative morality.

Ah! Thankyou very kindly

I disagree that a belief in God is the "get out of jail free card" for truth to be absolute. I think belief in God is one reason, but it is not required. Let us take the example of the Earth being round. It is absolute. There was a time when humans whole-heartedly believed the world was flat. But did that make it true? No. Humans could not invent that truth.

A good point. One way to approach it is that even given quantitive absolutes like geometric forms are simply a feature of our logical system. Even given a quantitive logical system as absolute, this does not mean that the same applies to qualitative logic. The latter is down to interpretation (to varying but always great degrees), which itself tends to relativism. Another way to approach it is saying that the shape of the earth is the premise for the argument "the earth is flat". This has been proved false, yet some still, by a twisted logic that still somehow holds that it is flat. However, ignoring that, the actual shape is merely a premise for the position, a logical support. That support has now been removed. Yet the position on its own, has not been necessarily demolished, and it never will be.

This is all an interesting consequence of relativism, where views are inherently equally worthless and comparison between them is analogous to art, however we support them with logic and critical analysis, turning it into something of a sport. I find it fascinating, though I suspect my reply wasn't exactly clear.

In theory, a perfect circle or a perfect square is possible. But in practice, they are not.

Very true indeed. Of course, one could take the theory to a different level of complexity where one could theoretically predict that it is not possible.

Of course. Every philosophical theory has flaws. That's the consequence of using reason - with the right postulates and a little wit, one can justify (and disprove) any situation. It all boils down to a matter of faith.

You're a born relativist enlight!! However, I come at it from the tinted looking glass of critical theory, where some arguments (premises + conclusions) are weaker than others, whereas objectively that is not the only way, and not necessarily the best way of looking at it. I just find the logic behind virtue ethics and Kant's moral absolutes to be flawed.

[DetriusXii]

I believe it's absolute. If morality is relative, then there can be no truly right answer in our society or to individuals (the society can be reduced down to individuals). And if there is no right set of morals, then there exists no wrong set of morals which is ridiculous since all cultures tend to have a respect for their dead (the way they perform it may be different).

However, I don't believe any culture has gotten it right but that our Western societies societies are exceptional that we are trying to discover new moral truths much like mathematicians try to find new mathematical identities and lemmas. Math is not complete but mathematicians still strive to make it more complete. I do believe the basis of morals rests upon what tends to make our society more healthy and vibrant in terms of nature.

However, the moment we stop looking outward and stop evaluating other cultures to see what they've done wrong and what they've done right is the moment we become ignorant on morals. Suppose American mathematicians stop integrating proofs, lemmas, theories, and laws into mathematics performed European mathematicians. And the Europeans continue integrating the above into mathematics. European mathematicians now have a more complete set of mathematics than American mathematicians and have clearly gained because by accepting that some things in other cultures are right and using them as part of their own culture helps their culture advance quicker than American culture.


However, I believe Christian culture has gotten some morals right and some moral wrong. That's why morality needs to be argued in secular terms so we can have a real discussion on ethics and morals. We can't stick to the Bible as truth because there has been contradictions shown by the Bible from philosophers. I could quote from my philosphy texts where philosophers shown sufficient contradictions in the Old and New Testaments. And there always exists The Problem of Evil, and The Problem of Free Will to deny the Christian God as existing to be true. (I'm not an expert on philosophy but I believe my level of knowledge is sufficient on this debate and will concede if someone can show their level of knowledge is greater than my own, eg someone possessing a philosophy degree, or have taken more classes than myself.)


Forgive me for any grammatical errors, spelling errors, or any complete thoughts, because I'm legally high on morphine right now (tore my ACL a while back.) and received surgery on Tuesday, February 23, 2004

[BenElijah]

If morality is relative, then there can be no truly right answer in our society or to individuals (the society can be reduced down to individuals).

Not so. Consider that in a culture or a society, there are given notions of what is right and wrong. Relativism only states that these are not necessarily true for another context. Indeed, this is the very premise of cultural and descriptive relativism!!

since all cultures tend to have a respect for their dead (the way they perform it may be different).

Sufficient condition, not necessary. It's easy to conceive of a culture with no respect for the dead (German cannibalism? ). There is no logical barrier within this context.

However, I don't believe any culture has gotten it right but that our Western societies societies are exceptional that we are trying to discover new moral truths much like mathematicians try to find new mathematical identities and lemmas.

All societies try to do that, but linking the question of qualitative logic with quantitive is an error imo. Quantitive or canonical sciences tend to operate on a "standing on the shoulders of giants" principle, whilst qualitative operates on an "umbrella" principle. COnsider that we consider 2500 year old philosophy valid and potent. Do we do the same with its contemporary sciences?

I do believe the basis of morals rests upon what tends to make our society more healthy and vibrant in terms of nature.

What you are doing there is attempting to subjectively describe something (no doubt what it means to you) and purport it as an objective tautology. I could easily pose another one, yet logic has the capacity to support or refute either view to an equal degree. I very much doubt that even within one society there would be anything resembing consensus, the existence of this very debate is evidence of that.

However, the moment we stop looking outward and stop evaluating other cultures to see what they've done wrong and what they've done right is the moment we become ignorant on morals.

A strange proposition. As a consequence of "what they've done wrong and what they've done right" is that the amalgamation of what they do right creates a more "right" society does it not? Yet, it is hard to provide an example of that being the case. Look at it like a logical argument. Premise -> Conclusion. Change the premise, change the conclusion. You cannot simply transplant a conclusion and expect it to hold on a different set of premises.

I'm not an expert on philosophy but I believe my level of knowledge is sufficient on this debate and will concede if someone can show their level of knowledge is greater than my own, eg someone possessing a philosophy degree, or have taken more classes than myself

I believe a better way of determining that is how many books one has read, is or has written, or level of thought granted. My teacher never had any degree or any classes, yet is nothing short of a genius.

You seem to be stating morality to be linked towards a culture, but that does not lend itself to absolutism, but to relativism. What one does right is right for another is very Kantian but does not really hold water. For example, arranged marriages or sexual slavery may be right for one culture, but I think we can all safely say from a Western perpspective, it most certainly is not! You used the example of mathematics, but that is a flawwed analogy. I will repair it by using the problem of transferring axioms from one internally consistent logical system to another. It just won't work. Same situation applies here, yet as we are dealing with abstractions and qualitative concepts, we can actually perceive it in real life.

helps their culture advance quicker than American culture.

Define cultural advance.

Forgive me for any grammatical errors, spelling errors, or any complete thoughts, because I'm legally high on morphine right now (tore my ACL a while back.) and received surgery on Tuesday, February 23, 2004

Ah! Hope the surgery went ok, not a good area to hurt. And it's ok... you need opiates to claim moral absolutism...

[DetriusXii]

I'm citing Louis Pojman: Who's to Judge in the book "Vice & Virtue in Everday Life" with the readings selected by Christina & Fred Sommers.

I'm not trying to attack you, but Pojman makes a clear case that Conventional relativism means that no individual is right or wrong because each person's belief system is different. And he reduces subjective relativism to conventional relativism by asking the question that what determines a society. WHat determines how large a society is. Can a society be composed if a group of people? Is five a sufficiently large number of people? How about two? And if a group of two can form a society can form a society, and if one partner dies, the partner that's alive is still part of society and his society's rules. But this is exactly what conventional relativism is. So is there a disproof of Louis Pojman's ideas?

[enLight]

You're a born relativist enlight!!

Well I wouldn't exactly say that.

I'd say this: I believe that truth is absolute and because of that, there is a philosophical system that reflects that truth. But I don't believe that humans have the capacity to determine if we have arrived at that system yet. Reason can be used to justify any position for the human perspective, but a system based on reason alone is lacking the spiritual (not in the religious sense but rather the transcendent notions of life and our connections to them; the conscience) - something we are all part of. A system that lacks that can never reflect the truth.

Sorry if this sounds a little abstract, but I find it very hard to explain.

Oh, and I perused your website...very impressive. I too have a similar site.

[BenElijah]

So is there a disproof of Louis Pojman's ideas?

His ideas seem sound to me, a good defence of relativism from what you've said. However, one could launch a common attack against relativism, that of semantics - that communication requires a semantic holism. This attack however is easily refuted by the notion of subjective interpretation.

I'd say this: I believe that truth is absolute and because of that, there is a philosophical system that reflects that truth. But I don't believe that humans have the capacity to determine if we have arrived at that system yet.

A very good point, however I am afraid that I will have to get overly logical here . I have attempted to amalgamate some philosophical theories (subjectivism) and certain ideas in cosmology into a transdimensional theory. Here it has implications for logic, where in order to solve problems, we add a dimension. Consider, for example here, that we have a graph, axis labelled 0-10. As far as the graph is concerned, the number 11 is infinity. It cannot know that number. However in a graph labelled 0-20, the number 11 is as perceivable (and if we use the qualitative analogy, fallible) as any of the other numbers within that range.

The same logic applies here. For the context of this universe, there may be a truth (though a very strong case can be made for its non-existence (stronger imo than the argument for but thats another story)) but it would require an infinity (absolute). As you state, we cannot know it (which has already rendered it irrelevant for any concept of morality), yet even if we were taken into a context where we could (add a dimension), then this "truth" would be placed into competition with other truths (the actual "existence" is speculative, however there is no logical barrier) such that in that bigger context, it would cease to be a truth. This is all a consequence of relativism.

Reason can be used to justify any position for the human perspective, but a system based on reason alone is lacking the spiritual (not in the religious sense but rather the transcendent notions of life and our connections to them; the conscience) - something we are all part of.

The two need not be mutually exclusive. For example, consider my article on the Mill Limit. In the absense of objective morality, we can instead rely on the consequences of our own emotional (and dare I say logical) dispositions. Furthermore, within society, all that I am stating is that no moral position can be enforced (laws based upon a more logical principle like the ML is a separate contextual exception) by imposition, though one can be encouraged through influential means, such as education. However I request that you explain your argument with regards to the conscious.

Sorry if this sounds a little abstract, but I find it very hard to explain.

That's ok, I make more than enough overly abstract explanations...

Oh, and I perused your website...very impressive. I too have a similar site.

My website is pretty old, I need to update both the pages, articles and some of my views. Your website is impressive I will look through it all later, I've only looked at a few texts thus far. You have added to my bookmarks .

[enLight]

However I request that you explain your argument with regards to the conscious.

Well the reason for mentioning the conscience is due to a conversation I recently had with a friend. We were discussing morality and I had claimed that virtue (as you've read above) could act as a measuring stick for morality.

We had both agreed that the ultimate goal of life is to attain happiness. My friend (who is 85, and one of the smartest people I know) said that in the course of his life, he had only seen two kinds of people who were truely happy: 1) People with complete devotion to their religion (for instance, his grandmother was a devout Christain and did not fear death - she thought of it as a good thing since she would be with her dead relatives again) and 2) People who were content with life ; the people who are content with their home, content with their family, content with their job, etc.

We decided to focus on the latter version of happiness because it could apply to all people. I mention that perhaps a virtuous life could lead to a content life (which would lead to happiness and comfort). We debated a little over what exactly these virtues were. I placed Courage, Temperance, Justice, and Reverence as the most important. But my friend said that he would define virtue as a commendable quality or trait that is guided by each person's conscience. Deep down we all have that "gut feeling" as to what is really right and wrong. Now, he didn't necessarily mean that people invent their own virtues either. He went on further to claim that if he and I and anyone else went off into a cabin out in the woods - away from the influence of society, away from the doctrine of religion, away from the politics - and we deconstructed everything down to the bare bones, we would all have essentially the same conscience.

I, for one, think he has an excellent point. While we may all have that conscience edging us towards "right" we definitely chose whether to listen to it or not. We also come up with our own systems of right and wrong to cover up our conscience - to convince ourselves that we are right and that little feeling waaaaaay back there is wrong. And really, that's a consequence of being human. But we all have the capacity to listen to our conscience and follow good. It's a little abstract, perhaps, but also pretty plausible.

So that's how the "conscience" got mentioned in my argument.

[DetriusXii]

Well, actually, Pojman was attacking relativism and how under relativism, no one can be judged by their actions since everyone believes they are right. There would be no concept of right and wrong under conventional relativism, and since subjective relativism has been shown to be reduced to conventional relativism, there still exists no morals which we can judge by.

I will post Pojman's attack on Conventional Relativism if it's not clear how Conventional Relativism if flawed.

[BenElijah]

Well, actually, Pojman was attacking relativism and how under relativism, no one can be judged by their actions since everyone believes they are right. There would be no concept of right and wrong under conventional relativism, and since subjective relativism has been shown to be reduced to conventional relativism, there still exists no morals which we can judge by.

I will post Pojman's attack on Conventional Relativism if it's not clear how Conventional Relativism if flawed.

I dont see it as an attack, and I suppose it is true to a point, whereupon it becomes a strawman. The flaw of course is the issue of context, which is something relativism has generally lacked. As such it has been considered a fairly weak philosophy, but of course, look further into it and one sees it has merit.

For example, consider the notion of subjectivity. Yes, objectively, according to relativism, morality cannot exist, nor can right or wrong, as is demonstrated by descriptive and normative relativism. However, we are not objective. We clearly have morality, including the emotivism required to engage in this debate! Relativism merely states that this "morality" and subjectivity is not necessarily objective, in other words, true for another subjective. This is something that lends itself to pacifism and libertarianism, because it implies a distinction between influence and active inhibition. Influence is allowed by relativism since it is environmental and interpretive, whereas one assumes inhibition not to be so. In other words, I can express a view and back it up, including a moral view, and why I think it is desirable for people to follow a particular course of action etc etc, whereas relativism merely stops me from imposing that view upon them. They are free to read or ignore my words, but ignoring a bullet in ones brain or a fist in ones face is something altogether different I think we can all agree.

Furthermore, this is not really an attack, but rather a strawman (I've done some homework since a couple of days ago). He is taking relativism, modding it and taking his strawman to its logical conclusion, then using the results of that to launch a consequential attack (which differs from a critical attack in that it is not dealing with the logic in the actual argument, and requires extra reasoning to provide a utilitarian argument). This of course assumes he is intentionally doing this, but either way the results are the same.

I must confess I do get rather irrate at times when relativism is shown to be a dud philosophy, bastion of politically correct notions of tolerance, liberty and pacifism (I wonder from where most of the attacks come... ), and as such it is almost always referred to as a criticism. I see more merit in this philosophy though, and the common attacks (including the strongest; what I call the relativist paradox) are engaged with relative ease.

To be honest, I find the question of moral relativism to be self-evident, but kudos to the absolutists here, notably Enlight as he raises some very important points.

[1skull2hands]

I think that morality is completely RELATIVE! thats right, simply because my morality may be different than yours, ie. morality is relative!

If morality were absolute, we would all be socialists building a Utopia full of moral ethics and understanding for the masses!

Or if were all placed unconcious faith to the almighty, living by a strick absolute moral code of rightiousness, which we all know is not happening in reality!

therefore: morality is 100% relitive, and its either 100% or not at all!

peace yall