• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Moral Relativism

Paxaeon

Paxaeon

Banned
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
2,029
Reaction score
861
Location
NE WI.
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
`
The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation. It can be used positively to effect change in the law (e.g., promoting tolerance for other customs or lifestyles) or negatively as a means to attempt justification for wrongdoing or lawbreaking. The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, which espouses a fundamental, Natural Law of constant values and rules, and which judges all persons equally, irrespective of individual circumstances or cultural differences.​


I've used the word "immoral" to describe the US invasion of Iraq. It fits the academic venue but is what is considered "moral" an absolute value? Those that decided to invade Iraq certainly did not. If that is the case, then where does one draw the line as to what is moral or immoral?
`
 
The opposite of moral relativism is moral objectivity. The objectivity of a moral is determined by including as many perspectives as possible in the evaluation. The moral perspective that includes the most perspectives is the most objective. This objectivity, of course, is not absolute.
 
We all draw our own line.

Paxaeon said:
`
The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation. It can be used positively to effect change in the law (e.g., promoting tolerance for other customs or lifestyles) or negatively as a means to attempt justification for wrongdoing or lawbreaking. The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, which espouses a fundamental, Natural Law of constant values and rules, and which judges all persons equally, irrespective of individual circumstances or cultural differences.​


I've used the word "immoral" to describe the US invasion of Iraq. It fits the academic venue but is what is considered "moral" an absolute value? Those that decided to invade Iraq certainly did not. If that is the case, then where does one draw the line as to what is moral or immoral?
`
Click to expand...
 
So, using the example of our invasion of Iraq--I do not wish to rehash the politics of all that please--but focus on moral relativism vs moral objectivity. . . .

Does moral relativism or moral objectivity apply there?

The immorality of it is the same as the immorality inherent in war whether that war is just or unjust. All war is a giant indecency that imposes harm, injury, death, deprivation, injustice on many people who have no part in that war, who did not ask for it, who did not want it, who never would have started it.

But, is it more or less moral to be proactive in preventing a ruthless dictator from imposing harm, death, deprivation, or injustice on people?

Is it more or less moral to end sanctions that were in themselves imposing harm, death, deprivation, and injustice on people?

Is it more or less moral to try to install a culture and government system that does not impose harm, death, deprivation, and injustice on people?

Or is it more or less moral to mind our own business and trust others to mind theirs?

These are not easy questions.

There is the issue of those who are so committed to allowing karma to dictate how the world works that they will not pull a drowning person from the water lest they interfere with that person's karma. And the polar opposite of that are those who would control every aspect of another person's experience with that same water.

Moral relativism tries to seek a balance between those two things. Moral objectivity will take a stand that each is equally immoral.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Does moral relativism or moral objectivity apply there?
Click to expand...

I don't think so, because both sides are claiming to be inclusive of perspectives in their evaluation. Both sides are claiming objectivity, neither concedes relativism.
 
ecofarm said:
I don't think so, because both sides are claiming to be inclusive of perspectives in their evaluation. Both sides are claiming objectivity, neither concedes relativism.
Click to expand...

But do they have to concede it in order for it to apply? There are those who speak untruths who deny that they lie. There are those who lift up and inspire people who deny they have that effect. There are those who believe they are completely right and justified in what they do while most would see them as completely wrong.

So what we profess to be reality may in fact not be at all.

And I believe that applies in the case of moral relativism vs moral objectivity.
 
AlbqOwl said:
But do they have to concede it in order for it to apply?
Click to expand...

For one position to be more relative (and less objective) than another, it must be demonstrated that the position includes less perspectives in the evaluation.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Does moral relativism or moral objectivity apply there?
Click to expand...
`
With all due respect, I'm not looking for a Moral Relativism VS Objectivism discussion. Specifically, I'm speaking about Moral Relativism and it's effect on thinking, especially when justifying certain actions.

Thank you for your reply.
`
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
For one position to be more relative (and less objective) than another, it must be demonstrated that the position includes less perspectives in the evaluation.
Click to expand...

Yes well, if you cared to expand that into some sort of illustration we might have a discussion about it. Otherwise I don't see how it is relevant to the thread topic.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
We all draw our own line.
Click to expand...

Fair enough but considering what moral relativism is, does "drawing a line" indicate that morality (within this context) is not an absolute...meaning it's up to each individual to draw their own line?
`
 
Paxaeon said:
`
With all due respect, I'm not looking for a Moral Relativism VS Objectivism discussion. Specifically, I'm speaking about Moral Relativism and it's effect thinking, especially when justifying certain actions.

Thank you for your reply.
`
Click to expand...

Well I thought that was what I was doing with my response. But I may have missed where you wanted to go with the discussion. I will withdraw until you clarify exactly what you are shooting for here.
 
Paxaeon said:
Fair enough but considering what moral relativism is, does "drawing a line" indicate that morality (within this context) is not an absolute...meaning it's up to each individual to draw their own line?
`
Click to expand...

I call myself a moral relativist (more of a moral nihilist) but, yes, it's up to the individual to draw their own line. What's called 'wrong' by X, may be 'right' by Y and vice versa.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Yes well, if you cared to expand that into some sort of illustration we might have a discussion about it. Otherwise I don't see how it is relevant to the thread topic.
Click to expand...

I don't know where your confusion is.

Do you think moral relativism is absolute? Or do you understand that it exists in degrees depending on how many perspectives are accounted for?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Well I thought that was what I was doing with my response. But I may have missed where you wanted to go with the discussion. I will withdraw until you clarify exactly what you are shooting for here.
Click to expand...
`
We are discussing "moral relativism in a class I am taking. While I have a handle (not a complete understanding) on abstract conceptualizations, such as "moral relativism", I lack the real world applications. The Iraq example was a shot in the dark, so to speak. Part of understanding philosophy is in applying it to real word situations, or so I am told.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
With all due respect, I'm not looking for a Moral Relativism VS Objectivism discussion. Specifically, I'm speaking about Moral Relativism and it's effect on thinking, especially when justifying certain actions.

Thank you for your reply.
`
Click to expand...

Hey, it's not our fault you provided a quote with incorrect understanding. The opposite of moral relativism is not moral absolutism, it's moral objectivity, as explained herein.

There's no such thing as absolute anything. Anyone who believes so is a moron.
 
Paxaeon said:
`We are discussing "moral relativism in a class I am taking. While I have a handle (not a complete understanding) on abstract conceptualizations, such as "moral relativism", I lack the real world applications. The Iraq example was a shot in the dark, so to speak. Part of understanding philosophy is in applying it to real word situations, or so I am told.
Click to expand...

Which is why I took that example of the Iraq War you used and ran with it applying dichotomies that exist within moral relativism to it.

Moral relativism argues that there is no objective or universal moral standard.

The Iraq war, described in part by the specific issues involved, is an excellent example of that.

For everything about war, and specifically that war, that we can objectively identify, there is another issue that has to be considered within the myriad issues involved. Theoretically each can be evaluated objectively as to whether the actions to address it were moral or immoral, but there are so many variables involved that a concrete standard becomes impossible.

Both action and inaction had their own consequences. Ergo, you have moral relativism in making decisions to act or not act and/or in evaluating the consequences of actions taken.
 
Moral subjectivism (likely what you mean by moral relativism, which is a subset of moral subjectivism) holds that moral statements may be true or false but that depends on some context.

For example (a non-moral example) "Joe is short". That statement may be true or false depending on some reference. He may be short for a professional basketball player. But he might be tall for an average person. The truth or falsity of the claim depends on a certain context.

The same idea applies to moral subjectivism. "Slavery is wrong" may or may not be a true statement depending on a certain context. What context you ask? That depends. There are a variety of competing theories. Individualistic subjectivism holds that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the specific individual. Moral relativism or (cultural relativism) holds that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the society/culture. And there are other even more nuanced theories like ideal observer theory.

From a practical standpoint, espousing moral subjectivism makes it difficult (or impossible) to argue that someone who doesn't share your context (someone who is from a different culture) is doing something morally wrong.
 
`
I'd like to thank everyone for their responses. I didn't quite find out what I thought I wanted but did learn what I needed to know.
`
 
AlbqOwl said:
So, using the example of our invasion of Iraq--I do not wish to rehash the politics of all that please--but focus on moral relativism vs moral objectivity. . . .

Does moral relativism or moral objectivity apply there?

The immorality of it is the same as the immorality inherent in war whether that war is just or unjust. All war is a giant indecency that imposes harm, injury, death, deprivation, injustice on many people who have no part in that war, who did not ask for it, who did not want it, who never would have started it.

But, is it more or less moral to be proactive in preventing a ruthless dictator from imposing harm, death, deprivation, or injustice on people?

Is it more or less moral to end sanctions that were in themselves imposing harm, death, deprivation, and injustice on people?

Is it more or less moral to try to install a culture and government system that does not impose harm, death, deprivation, and injustice on people?

Or is it more or less moral to mind our own business and trust others to mind theirs?

These are not easy questions.

There is the issue of those who are so committed to allowing karma to dictate how the world works that they will not pull a drowning person from the water lest they interfere with that person's karma. And the polar opposite of that are those who would control every aspect of another person's experience with that same water.

Moral relativism tries to seek a balance between those two things. Moral objectivity will take a stand that each is equally immoral.
Click to expand...

War is often a sort of special case.

It is generally only after the fact that you can judge it's morality.

When the war was fought to create a nice Iraq without an evil dictator in charge that was OK as far as it went, but the incompetence of the clean up and construction of a sound system of civil governance has to be judged in the same light as the conduct of the war and the justification of the war.

I'll expand;

That we didn't use nukes is a good thing. No point in using a sledge hammer to crack a peanut. The force used was generally as little as practical to achieve the victory as bloodlessly as possible. Good.

That we had no idea of what we were doing after the military victory is unforgivable. It's our reason for invading in the first place, to improve the governance of the place.

In this incompetence is immoral.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
We all draw our own line.
Click to expand...

I agree, without quoting great philosophers and all the other bunk pushed off as relative what is moral is per the individual. You can even disagree with your children, parents and everyone you ever met when it comes to morality.
 
Tim the plumber said:
War is often a sort of special case.

It is generally only after the fact that you can judge it's morality.

When the war was fought to create a nice Iraq without an evil dictator in charge that was OK as far as it went, but the incompetence of the clean up and construction of a sound system of civil governance has to be judged in the same light as the conduct of the war and the justification of the war.

I'll expand;

That we didn't use nukes is a good thing. No point in using a sledge hammer to crack a peanut. The force used was generally as little as practical to achieve the victory as bloodlessly as possible. Good.

That we had no idea of what we were doing after the military victory is unforgivable. It's our reason for invading in the first place, to improve the governance of the place.

In this incompetence is immoral.
Click to expand...

BUT. . . .even within the incompetence inherent in the nation building part of that equation, there were magnificent successes. Small villages that had never had any sort of infrastructure having clean drinking water, electricity, and a decent school building for the very first time. Political casualties who had had their hands cut off by Saddam's regime having prosthetic hands installed and what that meant to them. People who had been terrified of running afoul of government authorities and being subject to unconscionable atrocities being able to go about their jobs and shopping and visiting without fear for the first time in a very long time. Children making friends with our boots on the ground there and learning that Americans were not the evil, hateful people as they had previously been taught.

And most importantly, the sanctions that were imposing unconscionable hardships on so many of the people were no longer enforced and that alone greatly improved the quality of life for millions of the Iraqi people.

So even here moral relativism is a factor. There is no way to paint it as all evil or all good. And different people will see the positives and negatives with varying degrees of importance.
 
AlbqOwl said:
BUT. . . .even within the incompetence inherent in the nation building part of that equation, there were magnificent successes. Small villages that had never had any sort of infrastructure having clean drinking water, electricity, and a decent school building for the very first time. Political casualties who had had their hands cut off by Saddam's regime having prosthetic hands installed and what that meant to them. People who had been terrified of running afoul of government authorities and being subject to unconscionable atrocities being able to go about their jobs and shopping and visiting without fear for the first time in a very long time. Children making friends with our boots on the ground there and learning that Americans were not the evil, hateful people as they had previously been taught.

And most importantly, the sanctions that were imposing unconscionable hardships on so many of the people were no longer enforced and that alone greatly improved the quality of life for millions of the Iraqi people.

So even here moral relativism is a factor. There is no way to paint it as all evil or all good. And different people will see the positives and negatives with varying degrees of importance.
Click to expand...

Yes, totally. But when you invade a nation with the declared aim of making it a nice place to live, you have to achieve that to justify the deaths you will cause in the process. That's why overall the war is seen in a very bad light.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Yes, totally. But when you invade a nation with the declared aim of making it a nice place to live, you have to achieve that to justify the deaths you will cause in the process. That's why overall the war is seen in a very bad light.
Click to expand...

But that was not the declared aim of the war was it? The declared aim was to eliminate a situation that the entire United Nations, almost all heads of state throughout the free world, all the Arab nations, the entire Clinton and Bush congresses, etc. etc. etc. believed to be imminent and dangerous to millions, to the stability of the region as well as to a major portion of the world's oil supplies. It was only later that the mission changed to 'helping Iraq achieve a more democratic form of government.' And remember that this too was very popular at first. Even the major leftwing news media was suggesting that Bush was right and it was having the effect the administration hoped for and generating winds of liberty throughout much of the Arab world.

And within all that much good happened and much bad happened. And whether it was worth it is where moral relativism comes in.

As for the deaths, why were the deaths in Iraq, most of which were due to Arab on Arab violence, seen as more morally reprehensible than the 50 to 60 MILLION deaths in WWII which was and remains the most deadly war in the history of the world? Why are not the Germans and Japanese and Italians and other Axis members constantly accused of being responsible for all those deaths? Again moral relativism is a factor in the evaluation of all that.

And then there is the ongoing controversy as to whether the millions of both Allied and Japanese lives that are believed to have been spared by dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified the carnage on the ground those bombs created. More moral relativism comes into play.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation. It can be used positively to effect change in the law (e.g., promoting tolerance for other customs or lifestyles) or negatively as a means to attempt justification for wrongdoing or lawbreaking. The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, which espouses a fundamental, Natural Law of constant values and rules, and which judges all persons equally, irrespective of individual circumstances or cultural differences.​


I've used the word "immoral" to describe the US invasion of Iraq. It fits the academic venue but is what is considered "moral" an absolute value? Those that decided to invade Iraq certainly did not. If that is the case, then where does one draw the line as to what is moral or immoral?
`
Click to expand...

I would say no to the moral charge. You would need to give a specific reason if you are going with an absolute value like manipulating facts in order to get approval to go to war.
 
ecofarm said:
I don't know where your confusion is.

Do you think moral relativism is absolute? Or do you understand that it exists in degrees depending on how many perspectives are accounted for?
Click to expand...

I don't think you can apply a law of averages to moral opinion. Let's say for argument that all people only have one perspective. If a situation occurs and you take a tally of the people who witnessed it, if the average comes out to be slightly immoral, the event is not suddenly considered immoral in everyone's mind. Everyone still considers the event as moral or immoral as before. If they did change their opinion, the average would change and you would then the event would be considered completely immoral if you apply the average of perspective. Each perspective exists independently of one another and continues to exist despite what the average of all the perspectives would be. Since there is no true unbiased perspective outside of perspective with which to judge all other perspectives, moral objectivity cannot be said to exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom