Is Morality Absolute or Relative?

[snex]

whether or not bateman goes to heaven is NOT immaterial. it is the entire basis from which you judge his actions as moral. if he went to hell, youd call him immoral.

your protestations that teapotgod is "perfect" and therefore must have perfect knowledge of morality simply assumes your conclusion. furthermore, by your own definition of "perfect," teapotgod cannot logically exist because it is incoherent.

 

[blazedaces]

if i say "hydrogen has a mass of 1" and you say "hydrogen has a mass of 2," we can discover who is wrong by measuring the mass of hydrogen. with your kleptomaniac, it is IMPOSSIBLE to measure the morality of stealing. there is simply no way to do it, because there is no objective standard by which to do any measuring. all you have is my desire to not be stolen from vs the kleptomaniac's desire to steal.

Snex, what if you said "hydrogen is heavy" and I say "hydrogen is light"?

This exactly illustrates my earlier point, just because, now, or at any point in time, there does not exist a way to quantitatively measure something/compare it to another similar object doesn't mean we can't simply derive one.

Today we measure "heaviness", if you will, using either force or mass, that is, we measure them in units of "number of pounds or slugs" or "number of newtons or grams". Originally though, heavy and light were only relative terms.

The same can be said about ethics/morality. We can decide on a system by which we can measure the morality of actions. I explained this earlier. You never answered me though...

-blazed

 

[snex]

the problem with any ethical theory is that no matter how you slice it, it has to depend on the desires of humans who will never agree with each other. even with a strict utlititarianism that values human life above all, you have to get that desire to keep human life from the opinions of the people. some people who do not value human life will not agree with the moral system.

when talking about the properties of an atom, it is the atom itself that matters, not its observers. when talking about ethics, the observers do matter.

imagine that you and i are the only two humans in existence. we both desire to not be killed, but i have a desire to kill you. how can the situation be resolved by an appeal to morality? morality is essentially the desires of the vast majority. in our situation, there is no majority, so there is no way to claim anything i do is moral or immoral.

most people agree that killing is wrong because we dont want to be killed and have no desire to kill others, and those of us that do want to kill are such an extreme minority that the rest of us can collectively agree to imprison them.

 

[Skylink]

Way to show up late. I missed a lot of good stuff here.

Blazed, yes, "heaviness" and "lightness" of hydrogen are relative terms, but they stay relative until you bring the pounds/grams/newtons in. However, even if haven't defined the pond/newton/gram, the mass of the hydrogen atom would still be absolute. Different people, who carry different things would come along and say that "this is heavy" or "this is light." The same goes for morality.

snex, if you and blazed were the only two humans in existence, and you wanted to kill him, that doesn't make killing right. We are by nature not perfect, and (from time to time) naturally hypocritical. We desire to bring ourselves up and also desire to put others down, and the desire to make the most of our lives and get ahead in the world often distorts our perception of morality. When we get too far ahead of ourselves and think differently enough, we will get desires to do things that most people naturally don't approve of.

Also, on your last paragraph, you say that we as a whole collectivly agree that killing is "wrong" because we have no desire to kill or be killed. Does this mean that if we all start to have a desire to kill and or be killed, would this make killing "right"? Why don't we go back to this hypothetical scenario and imagine both you and blazed had a desire to kill and be killed. but before any of you did anything, you thought about it honestly. You ignored your desire and thought about what would be best for you two as a whole. Would it be right then?

 

[snex]

thats exactly my point.. it wouldnt be "right" or "wrong" either way. these words have no meaning outside the context of a full society that gives them meaning. the action of killing would just be fulfilling my desires over which i have no control.

think about animals.. some animals live in societies and others do not. animals without societies have no problem killing other animals. animals that do live in societies tend to have what appear to us to be systems of morality. chimpanzees do not kill members of their own tribe, but they will kill members of other tribes in wars. these behaviors ultimately stem from evolution, but in each individual chimp, they stem from the desires it has been given by that evolution. nobody would argue that a chimp's reluctance to kill its tribemates comes from the great dr zaius who lives in the sky and dictates chimp morality.

 

[Skylink]

Excuse me, morality would have plenty of meaning outside a full society! If no one can see what you're doing, or if there is no one to see you, you still feel that you're doing the wrong thing. You may continue to do it anyway, but it still naturally felt wrong.

And, if I may ask, what are you trying to prove with your second paragraph? Yes, other more highly evolved animals have resembling, yet less complete or powerful, innate cognitive moral systems. And your point is?

 

[snex]

why do you think the person would feel wrong? sociopaths are people who genuinely do not feel any guilt over hurting others. if everybody were a sociopath, then murder wouldnt be considered wrong (of course, our species wouldnt last very long either).

my second paragraph proves that moral behavior is subjective and based on the way society operates.

 

[Kalypso]

why do you think the person would feel wrong? sociopaths are people who genuinely do not feel any guilt over hurting others. if everybody were a sociopath, then murder wouldnt be considered wrong (of course, our species wouldnt last very long either).

my second paragraph proves that moral behavior is subjective and based on the way society operates.

...no....

A sociopath is someone who is unable to empathize with other peoples emotions or feelings, and is generally unable to connect with others, or understand them. You give the term a strong negative connotation.

Also, in a society of Sociopaths, the same laws would remain in place to maintain life. They would simply be implemented for survival instead of the 'feeling of doing wrong.'

your protestations that teapotgod is "perfect" and therefore must have perfect knowledge of morality simply assumes your conclusion.

*bangs head against wall*

Re-read my synopsis post. You have completely forgotten what you are even debating. The fact that this god is perfect is the ENTIRE POINT of me mentioning it...

 

[snex]

you clearly have no idea what a sociopath is. why do you continue to debate when you have no facts on your side? what i said was correct, and you have not refuted it by citing any facts whatsoever. you have merely given an opinion which is not based on anything.

 

[Kalypso]

you clearly have no idea what a sociopath is. why do you continue to debate when you have no facts on your side? what i said was correct, and you have not refuted it by citing any facts whatsoever. you have merely given an opinion which is not based on anything.

What is a psychopath?

A psychopath has no concern for the feelings of others and a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation

Psychopathy is currently defined in psychiatry and clinical psychology as a condition characterized by lack of empathy [1] [2] or conscience, and poor impulse control [3] [4] or manipulative behaviors.[5]

A sociopath is someone who is unable to empathize with other peoples emotions or feelings, and is generally unable to connect with others, or understand them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath

I'm losing all desire to debate with you about anything. You're resorting to personal insults and you don't even have a debating ground to stand on....

 

[snex]

your link neither supports your claim that sociopaths would have a moral system in which killing was wrong nor the idea that what i said was wrong.

present facts or go away.

 

[Kalypso]

your link neither supports your claim that sociopaths would have a moral system in which killing was wrong nor the idea that what i said was wrong.

When did I say ANYTHING about a moral system? I said they would have many of the same LAWS....

If a society of sociopaths are unable to empathize with one another, they are still able to realize that Eye for an Eye Darwinism isn't ideal, and that there needs to be a system of order to protect themselves. Killing wouldn't just be legal because it's a society of sociopaths.

present facts or go away.

...you sound like a little kid

 

[snex]

if their society would have these laws, why the hell do they break them in our society? it is nonsense to claim that they would go to the trouble of setting up laws that they would all be in favor of breaking.

 

[Kalypso]

if their society would have these laws, why the hell do they break them in our society? it is nonsense to claim that they would go to the trouble of setting up laws that they would all be in favor of breaking.

Not all sociopaths kill. In fact, a minority do...

The common sociopath socially manipulates people, such as repeatedly convincing girls to have sex with them and them leaving them for someone else with no regard to their feelings at all.

A sociopath isn't someone with no feelings, emotion or sense of self. The mere fact that a sociopath still desires to live leads to the logical conclusion that they would pass laws in favor of life. I by no means am saying their society would be the same, but saying it would be complete anarchy seems ridiculous.

 

[blazedaces]

the problem with any ethical theory is that no matter how you slice it, it has to depend on the desires of humans who will never agree with each other. even with a strict utlititarianism that values human life above all, you have to get that desire to keep human life from the opinions of the people. some people who do not value human life will not agree with the moral system.

when talking about the properties of an atom, it is the atom itself that matters, not its observers. when talking about ethics, the observers do matter.

imagine that you and i are the only two humans in existence. we both desire to not be killed, but i have a desire to kill you. how can the situation be resolved by an appeal to morality? morality is essentially the desires of the vast majority. in our situation, there is no majority, so there is no way to claim anything i do is moral or immoral.

most people agree that killing is wrong because we dont want to be killed and have no desire to kill others, and those of us that do want to kill are such an extreme minority that the rest of us can collectively agree to imprison them.

thats exactly my point.. it wouldnt be "right" or "wrong" either way. these words have no meaning outside the context of a full society that gives them meaning. the action of killing would just be fulfilling my desires over which i have no control.

think about animals.. some animals live in societies and others do not. animals without societies have no problem killing other animals. animals that do live in societies tend to have what appear to us to be systems of morality. chimpanzees do not kill members of their own tribe, but they will kill members of other tribes in wars. these behaviors ultimately stem from evolution, but in each individual chimp, they stem from the desires it has been given by that evolution. nobody would argue that a chimp's reluctance to kill its tribemates comes from the great dr zaius who lives in the sky and dictates chimp morality.

Snex, you bring up many good points. I am going to have to honestly re-think my strategy on this matter. But for now, let me say this much: I despise relativism and this is the very reason I fight the idea that anything, including ethics is relative.

Even if today, ethics or morality is simply based on the society's wants/needs as a whole and therefore is not consistent, I would still strive to attempt to define an absolute, quantitative system by which to measure scientifically and precisely the ethical quality of one's actions.

Is it so hard to imagine such a system? I've attempted it, but right now, it is quite a daunting task. I continuously come back to thinking about the betterment of people as a whole, but obviously this is in disagreement, so why pick one over the other. Though there is some logic one can argue. For example, between two people where one says stealing is fine and the other disagrees, the reasoning behind each answer might determine how close to the truth each statement resides.

I will continue to ponder on this matter...

Till then,

-blazed

 

[Kalypso]

I despise relativism

Why? I'm not being a douche bag, genuinely curious.

 

[blazedaces]

Why? I'm not being a douche bag, genuinely curious.

Honestly, it seems to me like a very foolish perspective on truth, mostly because to a relativist, proof, evidence, experience, and observations mean absolutely nothing. If a relativist believes the yankees won the game I went to last night, it doesn't matter to him that everyone else all over the world/every official sports website/every official sports magazine says otherwise. Even if he went to the game last night and sat right next to me and we saw it together and as they lost I said "they just lost" it wouldn't matter.

I'm not saying a relativist would necessarily do that, but it literally does not matter either way what choice he made. Also, to a relativist, changing his mind is a waste of time, why do it, there's never any "reason", in fact, it's questionable what reason is at this point, but who cares, because it doesn't matter.

In fact, nothing matters! It doesn't matter that the person you're standing next to is beating a poor, defenseless child. There is no reason for action, especially if you hesitated in the very first moment because then you'd be changing your original decision to stay out of it. Not to mention, as a relativist (respect for other's opinions is not correlated with one's perspective on truth), technically this person has just as much a right to beat this kid as the police have for trying to stop him. And still, all this doesn't matter!

I still can't understand how anyone is truly a relativist, how someone goes through life never basing any truth on any evidence. Hydrogen, the most common isotope, is no longer necessarily 1 amu, if you're a relativist and want to believe it's 7, who cares, not the relativist, especially not if you weigh the hydrogen and show it to him because that certainly won't change his mind.

If your perspective on relativism varies please share it. My mind is always open to a change of heart if one shows me a good reason as to why I should change.

-blazed

 

[snex]

one need not be a relativist on all matters. clearly objectivism is USEFUL in things like science, math, baseball games, etc. in things like ethics, art, music, objectivism is much less useful. you can search your entire life for the "perfect" poem but the idea of "perfection" still only exists within your own mind. you may enjoy the poem, but you will not be able to form any cogent argument that can convince others to do so.

 

[blazedaces]

one need not be a relativist on all matters. clearly objectivism is USEFUL in things like science, math, baseball games, etc. in things like ethics, art, music, objectivism is much less useful. you can search your entire life for the "perfect" poem but the idea of "perfection" still only exists within your own mind. you may enjoy the poem, but you will not be able to form any cogent argument that can convince others to do so.

I agree on all of those besides ethics because ethics depicts what should and shouldn't be done in given situations. I refuse to believe that people's actions can not be judged in some way, that a person who kills in cold blood is just as justified as one saving a boy from being beat up by a mob of hooligans.

If someone wants to kill me does he have just as much right as I do in defending myself? Is there no way to say any specific action is right/wrong?

-blazed

 

[snex]

there is no objective way to say it. all you can do is get most people to agree with you that some forms of killing are ok and some forms of killing are not ok. you can certainly use objective facts in your persuasion, like "you dont like pain, and being killed is painful" - or "self defense keeps us alive at the expense of lawbreakers who we dont want around anyway" - but all of these facts must necessarily play to the desires of the people you are trying to convince.

somebody who is an extreme pacifist, for example, will probably not be swayed by any attempt to convince that killing in self-defense is ok. his desire for pacifism far outweighs his desire to live.

 

[blazedaces]

there is no objective way to say it. all you can do is get most people to agree with you that some forms of killing are ok and some forms of killing are not ok. you can certainly use objective facts in your persuasion, like "you dont like pain, and being killed is painful" - or "self defense keeps us alive at the expense of lawbreakers who we dont want around anyway" - but all of these facts must necessarily play to the desires of the people you are trying to convince.

somebody who is an extreme pacifist, for example, will probably not be swayed by any attempt to convince that killing in self-defense is ok. his desire for pacifism far outweighs his desire to live.

Well, I see, then if this is as objective as it can get, then we should at least treat it as such and not try to be any less objective. In this way have you not answered one of your previous questions when you asked if someone near a fireplace said stealing is fine? Could you not "use objective facts in your persuasion"?

If we were to debate about ethical views/morality should we not adhere to this logical construct at the very least? Yes, we can not make everyone happy, but we can create a system, albeit one based on the desires of very specific people. Then again, what is the point of this moral system if many can not come together to agree upon it?

This sounds familiar to the creation of a government or a body of people to decide upon the rules that others must follow in order to sustain stability.

Perhaps we could create such a group? Yes, but we will need this group to be powerful and commanding of at least many influential people/groups. Yes, yes, this is great, we will have a governing body that sits at the top, making generalized ethical rules, mostly their purpose will be to govern the sub-groups. Let's call these group societies, oh wait, even better, ethical societies. These ethical societies may need even more specific sub-societies in the future, but for now they'll do.

These ethical societies will be run by a group of individuals, perhaps we will call them comities, who will be elected by those they decide ethical rules upon (voted into office if you will, "chosen by the people, to speak for the people"). Of course the top group's comity's officials will be voted upon by those who run the sub-groups.

What say you about this system? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Unfortunately for engineers such as myself(correction, engineer-to-be, I'm still in school), there is no uniting top ethical society unless you want to count the society for professional engineers. It saddens me, but without some sense of unity engineers simply won't get the respect they deserve. Also, since countries like America don't require engineering licenses to practice engineering these societies don't have as much power to actually enforce their guidelines.

Sorry that I branched off and ranted about my complaints about engineering ethical societies... or engineering in general...

-blazed

 

[Kalypso]

Honestly, it seems to me like a very foolish perspective on truth, mostly because to a relativist, proof, evidence, experience, and observations mean absolutely nothing.

I think you miss the point of context.

An absolutist believes that there are global truthes. In society, if two societies disagree on something, an absolutist would say that one of them is morally right, and one is wrong, and which is right is up to debate. A relativist would first examine the context. In any moral issue there is a debate. Let's create some examples.

Country1 and Country2 are counties with unrelated cultures. Country 1 is largely conservative and Country 2 is largely liberal. At the same time, an election takes place with 'Should the word '****' be banned from usage on public television?' Country 1 votes yes, Country 2 votes no.

Now, as an absolutist, you would be forced to say one of those decisions is right, and debate which one. With relativism, you get the privilege of context, so you can ask instead 'Is this moral decision right for this environment?'

And in both cases, yes, it is. Both moral decisions reflect their environments. To say that one is wrong based on an absolutist policy, there would have to be some sort of defining order in the universe to determine this absolute right, which implies a deity. Which I have discussed plenty in previous.

Relativism is not Nihilism.

 

[Skylink]

If country 1 and 2 both vote "correctly," how is it possible that their elections give different desicions? There is no way it could possibly be harming one society and not harm the other.

Even if the word was found to be harming one society and not the other, then (under the assumption it is a profane word) Then it is by nature an offensive word. The only goal it can ever accomplish is to bring someone down, harm peoples' reputations, and abuse other respected things.

If Country1 found out that **** is rarely used on television anyway, and that it is only used to put down people that the viewers already dislike, then it may still be wrong, where Country2 sees the word used more often on a wider variety of subjects, and many viewers don't like the way it is used. The enviroment makes an act look more innocent in different places, but in both cases, it's still wrong.

 

[Kalypso]

If country 1 and 2 both vote "correctly," how is it possible that their elections give different desicions? There is no way it could possibly be harming one society and not harm the other.

....wow you completely missed the point of my post haha

If you're going to argue absolutism vs relativism, you need to at least be able to see the other sides point of view.

 

[Skylink]

I'm sorry for being inactive this week and last, My family and I were on vacation with a hosed laptop (got it repaired finally)

....wow you completely missed the point of my post haha

If you're going to argue absolutism vs relativism, you need to at least be able to see the other sides point of view.

And you apparently didn't read mine. All you have given me is an example, and it does not hold any ground for relativism.

As for what you said on a "Defining Order" in the universe, and to imply a deity, I don't know how you can conclude this. When you do something right, or do good, you are being helpful and benificial to society. when you do wrong or bad, you are simply being harmful to the well being of society. There is no defining order required, all that is is for actions to simply be always either constructive or destructive to yourself and those around you.

 

[blazedaces]

Wow, I thought this thread was dead. I had more to say, so here goes:

Kalypso, you have some strange idea that the only possible way there can be an absolutist view on ethics is if some "god" exists who can enforce those views... We have laws don't we? They are fairly absolute, give or take. Who enforces them? The government... But that's not the point. Something doesn't need to be enforced to be absolutely true. 2+2 = 4. No one needs to enforce that. It's going to be true even if every country tries to teach children that 2+2 = 5.

This is exactly how I feel about relativism. You would try to argue that 2+2 = 5 in the context of this other country... (Let's not argue semantics, when I say 2+2 I mean 2 numbers after 0 plus 2 numbers after 0 = 4 numbers after 0, just wanted to be clear).

You can think of examples that make your "context" ideal seem useful, but how about when a country's ethics go too far? Is there any extreme line you can not cross? Do you believe Hitler/Germany was morally right in their context to commit to their "final solution", complete extermination of an entire race of people, genocide?

-Asaf Erlich