Are morals relative or absolute?

Standman

I am not sure myself, although even if they are absolute I still think it is permissable to go against them in the right context, i.e. Stealing medicine to save a sick child. It may be morally wrong, but you had to do what you had to do!

The problem with the concept of absolute morals is that I think it encourages intolerance, and takes away certain civil liberties.

Take the example of prostitution. It is widely considered as immoral and this is the reason it is illegal, but I don't see why consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies. Under whos' morals are they being regulated?

DadaKopf

The human condition informs morality, sets its parameters as it were. That might give the impression of absolute morality. But if you ask me, ultimately they're relative. But human beings find ways of establishing adherence by a people to a particular code. As long as, within a particular context, people accept the need to establish values and rules towards agreed purposes, I don't see a problem. Here, it's always a question of influence and power. I don't think the source of morality is supernatural.

As for a more specific discussion on prostitution, there was quite a lengthy one on this topic on the humanities form a while back.

raah!

The human conidition I think only goes so far in terms of morality. It helps us be moral from an emotional stand point, but not from a logical one. For a logical morality to exist one needs to accept certain fixed laws. And since relative morality isn't logical , one can easily do the opposite by using logic.

I don't consider abiding by the laws of society so that you can benifit from living there as morality, as you could break the laws, not get caught and st ill reap all the benifits of living there, and this would be a much more successful way of living

Standman

raah! wrote: »

I don't consider abiding by the laws of society so that you can benifit from living there as morality, as you could break the laws, not get caught and st ill reap all the benifits of living there, and this would be a much more successful way of living

Some laws in irish society are put through on the basis of morality. Whos morality is this that we are all subject to?

raah!

If you look at some of the laws, they are very clearly derived from the authority of the catholic church. For example sodomy was illegal for a long time... maybe it still is

Black Swan

Peter Berger would suggest that morals are social constructions that are context laden? How else could one person's terrorist be another's freedom fighter?

Standman

raah! wrote: »

If you look at some of the laws, they are very clearly derived from the authority of the catholic church. For example sodomy was illegal for a long time... maybe it still is

Well, I know blasphemy is still a constitutional offence, and in the irish constitution fundamental personal rights are subject to morality or "the common good".

I think this issue of absolute morals is very important as in the context of our laws and constitution it is taking away peoples freedom!

raah!

Well in that sense all morals take away from peoples freedom. That's basically what they are, in the context of law, a limitation on freedom. And especially in the context of law they only tell you what you can't do. Not what it is good to do. Laws can prevent people from committing crimes but it can't make them 'moral'.

"morals are social constructions that are context laden". In this case we can justify things like human sacrafice and mass extermination of jews and the like just because everyone is doing it.

Standman

raah! wrote: »

Well in that sense all morals take away from peoples freedom. That's basically what they are, in the context of law, a limitation on freedom. And especially in the context of law they only tell you what you can't do. Not what it is good to do. Laws can prevent people from committing crimes but it can't make them 'moral'.

I understand that if I think it's morally right to go around killing, raping, and stealing, then I should have my freedom taken away from me because I am affecting other peoples freedom to live, own property etc.. But what I was referring to was laws based on morality that that impose on an individuals personal freedom, like taking drugs for example. If someone believes it's morally acceptable to take drugs, then they should be able to do it. To have a lwa forcing people not to do things like this, we are forcing someone elses morals onto an individual.

raah!

I think any kind of law system is always going to have some aspect of other peoples morals being forced on other people, this is the only way any moral system can work. The fact that we have laws shows relative morality is worthless. The government thinks it's ridiculous for us to want to reduce our productivity by taking drugs (beacuse apparantly taking certain drugs reduce your productivity but others don't). So they step in and take this from us.

Same as how people who like to sacrafice virgins would be saying "don't impose your morality on me, morals are social constructions and in my society we sacrafice virgins"

Standman

I don't see any reason why drug use should be illegal. If you are a consenting adult who decides that he or she wants to take drugs then I don't see how that is anyone elses business.

It's definitely not the same as sacraficing virgins any more than drinking a bottle of beer or smoking a fag is.

raah!

Well the government has the same reason to make this illegal as the catholic church ahd to make suicide illegal, they want their citizens to be as productive as possible, drugs are bad for your health, and bad health is harmful to productivity. Of course there may be other reasons like..... all those stupid conspiracies you hear (the paper industry and racism spreading anti cannabis propoganda for one)

These laws aren't made because it's 'immoral' persay, but because it is harmful to the state. But if there is not absoloute morality, and only 'social constructions' then whatever the state says is good is good, and whatever the state says is bad is bad

Standman

raah! wrote: »

Well the government has the same reason to make this illegal as the catholic church ahd to make suicide illegal, they want their citizens to be as productive as possible

The government has no right to take away personal freedoms for the benefit of society or "productivity", I mean, we're not communists.

raah!

heh, I agree, I was just giving a possible reason for making drug use illegal.

Anyway, on the subject of morality, I think that it can only be absoloute, as relative morals are not really morals. (as you can change them to suit yourself.. thereby making things like murder moral if you feel you woudl benefit)

Joe1919

There is a problem of calling oneself a relativist and saying that all moral actions are relative and there is absolutely no bottom line in terms of morality.

Does this mean that, say, human sacrifice, or wife-beating or torture or slavery or female genital mutilation or ethnic cleansing or knee-capping can be acceptable in certain cultures or in certain situations?

Should we be more tolerant to these practices and say 'all is relative'?

Tolerance works both ways. We can be too tolerant when we see someone doing something wrong and we do nothing about it.

I suppose we have to strike a balance between absolute and relative moral values.

aidan24326

All morality is relative. There are no fundamental absolutes. Morality as I see it is a human construct, and as such can have no absolutes. If certain moral values appear to be almost 'hard-wired' e.g 'do not murder another human being', then there is probably a good darwinian reason behind that. For example, a species who set about killing each other at the drop of a hat probably wouldn't last very long, and it's been shown even amongst other animal species that a sort of co-operative altruism has much greater survival benefits.

I guess you could argue that something which has become 'hard-wired' (in a sense) through darwinian selection could be deemed a moral absolute, but I would still disagree as there's no guarantee that the moral values we hold today will always be the same. They have not been in the past.

For example, it's only quite recently in human development that we've begun to seriously question our treatment of non-human animals, and to extend to them at least some of the moral values we hold for ourselves, even if only in a superficial way. There was a time not all that long ago when animals were seen merely as 'things' to do with as you please. But who's to say that day won't come again?

Joe1919

You could argue that certain amount of morality is actually 'hard-wired, e.g. parents looking after their young, animals form packs, bees & ants are naturally sociable, biological altruism, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/, empathy etc.

Humans do construct their own culture and within this certain norms and rules evolve. Now I agree that you can only be objective with these norms and rules within the framework or culture that we have created. But this framework usually serves a purpose and only works because it fulfils some natural need. This framework or culture is constantly changing (like software) but there is an underlying nature (like hardware) that is relatively stable.

Of course all moral questions are really normative questions i.e. What one 'ought' to do. All 'ought' questions have a hidden antecedent. If I say 'you ought to be kind to others', you can rightly ask 'Why ought I be kind to others'. Many people have tried to ground this 'why I ought' in different ways, in religion, in common happiness (utilitarianism), in duty, in law and in egoism. Some would argue that pain, suffering and death are the only absolutes and that most people are fond of themselves (egoism) and want to avoid these absolutes and hence all morality is founded on law and punishment (social contract idea).

Even within a group of friends, there are certain underlying rules or behaviour expected and friends do punish (by withdrawal of friendship etc.). In this respect, then, morality is absolute in that all societies have some rules of conduct (there is even honour among thieves) but there are differences in the detail. But these differences are not as huge as people think. Most societies look after their children and value their elderly to some extent.

Some people try to find a mid-point between relativism and absolutism and argue in favour of an objective position that's not quite absolute. I know that it can be quite confusing for children if the parent's has no objective rules or goals and hence there is a pragmatic necessity to be objective at times.

Perhaps, in the end, it is the burden of the human, to try to make some sense out of life that at times, really seems to have no sense.

raah!

aidan24326 wrote: »

All morality is relative. There are no fundamental absolutes. Morality as I see it is a human construct, and as such can have no absolutes. If certain moral values appear to be almost 'hard-wired' e.g 'do not murder another human being', then there is probably a good darwinian reason behind that. For example, a species who set about killing each other at the drop of a hat probably wouldn't last very long, and it's been shown even amongst other animal species that a sort of co-operative altruism has much greater survival benefits.

I guess you could argue that something which has become 'hard-wired' (in a sense) through darwinian selection could be deemed a moral absolute, but I would still disagree as there's no guarantee that the moral values we hold today will always be the same. They have not been in the past.

For example, it's only quite recently in human development that we've begun to seriously question our treatment of non-human animals, and to extend to them at least some of the moral values we hold for ourselves, even if only in a superficial way. There was a time not all that long ago when animals were seen merely as 'things' to do with as you please. But who's to say that day won't come again?

The greeks 'seriously questioned' our treatment of animals over two thousand years ago

As you say, these morals which are based on emotional responses (i.e biologically inherited ones) are not always adhered too. And really one can do away with them at will. So those are not really morals, if you can just change your mind about them. If every single person can have a differenty idea of good and bad, then there is no point in the words good or bad existing. So morals are either absoloute or they don't exist at all.

And as joe said, being too tolerable to others peoples morals can be harmful to everyone. One soloution would be to only apply these absoloute morals within the society which has made them.

But I would say, if there are no absoloute morals, then don't bother with them at all, and prosper due to exploitation of others.

On a stupid side note. If in the future, when the only source of morality is law, and more and more people begin to ignore this the government will probably have to increase it's control over people, physical control that is. as it is much harder for the government to control peoples morality than it is for a relgion to do it. Then we have nineteen eighty four

Standman

Joe1919 wrote: »

There is a problem of calling oneself a relativist and saying that all moral actions are relative and there is absolutely no bottom line in terms of morality.

Does this mean that, say, human sacrifice, or wife-beating or torture or slavery or female genital mutilation or ethnic cleansing or knee-capping can be acceptable in certain cultures or in certain situations?

I think the question here is that is it morally right to do something that is usually morally wrong if there are extreme circumstances? Like the example I gave earlier about stealing medicine for a sick child. Is the act of stealing morally right, or is it just understandable/permissable given the circumstances. Also if you take the Hiroshima/Nagasaki atomic bombings in WW2, this is genocide but given the circumstances it was deemed permissable, but I wouldn't necessarily say it was morally right. The allie's believed that it would end with more deaths and be much worse if they invaded, so you could justify it as the lesser of two evils.

I think that when yo say you are morally relative it's not really the correct term, as you still believe the act was morally wrong, but you can accept it given the circumstances. So in effect the morals don't change but the only alternative is to go against them. I suppose there are always acceptions to the rule.

bogwalrus

morals are related to social ideologies. A person from Russia can have different morals then that of an American, it has to do with upbringing no? They are not absolute anyway. Humans are similar yet different. You can be conditioned to not have the same morals as others in your society.

Would it be immoral for someone to kill another to save two lives?

raah!

The questions posed by both you and standman are both simply suggesting a utilitarian type of morality. But even this has a fixed idea of good and bad, and is therefore not relative, If it were why wouldn't killing all three of them and taking their money to do an equal amount of "good" to yourself. There is no reason that everyone should want the happiness shared out between everyone

DadaKopf

You could draw a distinction between the form and content of moralities. For example, two forms seem dominant, generally speaking: morality derived from a deity/deities, and morality derived from humanity. God or humanism.

As Dostoyevsky wrote, "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted". To create the impression of universal morality, humans have externalised pragmatic problems in God. The idea that (an) all-powerful creator/creators imposed a moral law takes responsibility away from the grubby nature of how they actually emerged and bestows that with a form of legitimacy. Of course, historically, it took big buildings, mountains of gold and destructive armies and massacres to preserve this moral law.

During the renaissance, the idea of humanism emerged - that, while the earth was made by God, man was as a god on earth. This motivated people to look to nature for moral law, inscribed in the universe by God.

During the Enlightenment, superstition receded as philosophers like Kant claimed the universe to be governed by rational logic, hence Kant's 'Moral Law'. But this only repackaged the outsourcing of morality to God. Utilitarianism was a 19th century, scientistic replacement.

All these visions place morality outside the human body. It lets humans off the hook for their actions.

It was only with the transformation of phenomenology into existentialism, and other similar developments, that rooted morality firmly in chaos, contingency and raw human experience. There is no morality, just choice. There is a commonality of experiences among humans, but the exact qualities and meanings of these vary from human to human, caught as we are in a bind between communitarianism and solipsism.

I do think we've reached a point where we're finally admitting to ourselves that morality is the very messy business of human relationships, suffering, power, politics and struggle in an essentially meaningless world. We create meaning and morality, we don't divine it. But a great many people fear this achievement.

It actually makes morality all the more vital. And finally, it's rooted in something real.

bogwalrus

raah! wrote: »

The questions posed by both you and standman are both simply suggesting a utilitarian type of morality. But even this has a fixed idea of good and bad, and is therefore not relative, If it were why wouldn't killing all three of them and taking their money to do an equal amount of "good" to yourself. There is no reason that everyone should want the happiness shared out between everyone

All i am saying is that humans get brought up to learn a certain type of morality through the surroundings they get brought up in. For some, if the end justifies the means then that is their fixed view of things which is not neccessarily associated with an underlying morality of whether their view is right or wrong, good or bad.

I think what we are getting at is a difference in what we see in nature as conscious self-aware beings-tainted by society, and then in our close observation of wildlife and other parts of nature which show us signs of natural instincts to protect young and signs of evolution. If anything morality can be tied in with efficiency within evolution. When species co-operate and co-exist it is a win win situation. For humans though we have to understand quite a bit to respect the need for goodness and our own aggressive nature as a species does not help.

At the end of the day i still believe it to be relative and the term morality is a creation of humanity to distinguish a kind of good and bad order to things so we can assure ourselves that there is indeed order in the world.

raah!

I do think we've reached a point where we're finally admitting to ourselves that morality is the very messy business of human relationships, suffering, power, politics and struggle in an essentially meaningless world. We create meaning and morality, we don't divine it. But a great many people fear this achievement.

It actually makes morality all the more vital. And finally, it's rooted in something real. [quote/]

I don't understand this one point. If we each make our own morality, and if it can vary from person to person, this seems to me to make it worthless. If there is no fixed idea of good or bad, then these words lose all meaning.

Since it is rooted in human experience, then if you enjoy killing old people, that is the 'good' thing to do. If you enjoy making money, then you can put all your efforts into making money and this will be the right thing to do. I don't accept the argument that society and laws would prevent people from doing this because quite frankly, it doesn't (at least not for me or many of my friends .who on a daily bases, due to this very moral relativity commit all kinds of acts detrimental to the fabric of society ).

You also said "there is no morality, just choice", and then followed with the paragraph saying it was vital. Do you mean it's vital for the masses but not for those who understand it?

And to bogwalrus, biological altruism is all well and good, but in todays modern society (in contrast to the ape families of the past) , one could go around killing and raping without incurring the wrath of the masses, due to the large degree of anonimity we enjoy these days. This (biological altruism) also does not make us act morally to people outside of our "tribe" and makes things like war and all this perfectly moral. It makes things such as charity for third world countries pointless.

So we get these business men doing all kinds of abhorable things which aren't exactly detrimental to our society, but would no doubt be defined as "evil" by anyone who accepted the old fixed values of good and evil

Edit: damn, still haven't worked out this quoting system

Joe1919

John Stewart Mill's Utilitarianism chapter 3 (short chapter) http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill3.htm is , in my opinion, a good read ( & place to start) if one is searching for an answer to that age old question 'Why be moral ' (Why be Just) .

DadaKopf

I don't understand this one point. If we each make our own morality, and if it can vary from person to person, this seems to me to make it worthless. If there is no fixed idea of good or bad, then these words lose all meaning.

We are intersubjective beings. I'm saying morality has a history. Moralities are shaped by the processes of history, which are the results of human actions. The universe is indifferent, amoral.

If we accept the contingency of history, and therefore morality, we can see how morality is a joint enterprise whereby communities/societies seek to establish collective codes to live by. I think someone referred earlier to Berger and Luckmann, who suggested that morality is "socially constructed".

You also said "there is no morality, just choice", and then followed with the paragraph saying it was vital. Do you mean it's vital for the masses but not for those who understand it?

This is absolutely not what I'm saying. You're looking for simplicity, black and white. Things just aren't like that. It's much more ambiguous. If we cannot rely on an external power for morality, and the alternative is solipsism, then it's imperative that humans themselves accept that they must create codes to live by. That's why it becomes all the more important. Moralities are collective enterprises, and they transform over time.

I'm coming at this from a meta-level; I'm not talking about your favoured morality versus mine or anyone else's, (e.g. it's 'wrong' to kill grannies), I'm talking about the underlying basis of moralities themselves. That, in essence, they have a history.

raah!

Thanks joe, I'll give that a read maybe next weekend when I am free from leaving cert.

To dada
I fully understand about how morality can be shaped by society and history, that was not what I was questioning. Here you say that the alternative is solipsism and "then it ins imperative that humans accept that they must create codes to live by". It might be 'imperative' for the masses to hold these or for 'humans' but it is not for the individual. In fact I think that solipsism leads to somethign else altogether.

I am aware that all moralities have a history, but it is also true that new people can come up with new moral theories every day. There is no reason that they should accept the system already in place in favour of their own. This leads to many different concepts of good and bad, which leads to amorality. Which was my point all along.

DadaKopf

it is also true that new people can come up with new moral theories every day. There is no reason that they should accept the system already in place in favour of their own. This leads to many different concepts of good and bad, which leads to amorality. Which was my point all along.

Perhaps you're not too familiar with the philosophical ideas I'm working with; I noticed you're doing your leaving cert. At your age, I was mad into existentialism - it was all about the individual and absolute relativism at the time. As I progressed through my degree and masters, I learned that no-one is an island. Human beings are part of a deep web of interactions, so much that it's difficult to talk of the individual at all - this is why I said we're intersubjective beings. We are defined by our interactions with other humans and with nature.

I would say that, if you're to read Mill's On Utilitarianism, you should supplement that with some introductions to Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, later Ludwing Wittgenstein, and Jacques Derrida. Specifically in relation to utilitarianism (and liberal morality), John Rawls' 'A Theory of Justice' is considered a masterpiece attack on utilitarianism from a universalist perspective, derived from re-readings of Immanuel Kant.

it is also true that new people can come up with new moral theories every day. There is no reason that they should accept the system already in place in favour of their own. This leads to many different concepts of good and bad, which leads to amorality. Which was my point all along.

This is confusing. You begin with accepting relativism, and say it leads to amorality, but would like to see universal morality restored. But if there were a universal morality, wouldn't we just accept it as given?

This is a contradiction, isn't it?

In essence, I think you're agreeing with me, but you feel funny about accepting the reality of it all. If, as you say, morality cannot be grounded in God, or whatever, then it is history that grounds it. While individual people trangress commonly-held moral codes, it's the weight of history and tradition, not God per se, that keeps that person in check.

raah!

I agree some of what I said about universal morality is a bit muddled, and the only reason I mentioned that at all is that I saw no reason why a subjective moral system would ever work. Perhaps instead of universal I should have said 'objective' (or some other word which gets across that morals are fixed, and those who do not hold certain morals are immoral).

But what i was saying was that, neither god nor the "weight of history and tradition" that keeps people in check. I am saying there is nothing to keeps people in check . (you could murder a granny steal her money and keep it secret from your friends/law, for example).

From the start I was more interested in the question of "why be moral" from a relativist point of view, than that of "are morals relative", which I guess would obviously lead to confusion regarding my posts.

Joe1919

"you could murder a granny steal her money and keep it secret from your friends/law, for example"

You should read Dostoevsky 'Crime and Punishment' sometime.

Best of luck with your exams.

DadaKopf

Joe1919 wrote: »

"you could murder a granny steal her money and keep it secret from your friends/law, for example"

You should read Dostoevsky 'Crime and Punishment' sometime.

Best of luck with your exams.

Hehehe.

Raar, you're an absolutist. An essentialist.

To me, you're argument is self-defeating.

Perhaps instead of universal I should have said 'objective' (or some other word which gets across that morals are fixed, and those who do not hold certain morals are immoral).

But what i was saying was that, neither god nor the "weight of history and tradition" that keeps people in check. I am saying there is nothing to keeps people in check . (you could murder a granny steal her money and keep it secret from your friends/law, for example).

Your argument is contradictory. Universal, 'objective', it doesn't matter - you think good and bad is the same for all people, all time. But equally, you accept that it's possible for people to act against a universal morality if a deity or social institution isn't present, and that context is not enough. If morality were universal, wouldn't it be universally accepted, hence no need for deities or institutions to impose morality?

I would say that, quite the reverse, morality is the product of social history, nothing cosmic about it. Might I remind you that the Ten Commandments forbids people to kill other people, however the Catholic Church has regularly altered 'universal' doctrine to suit its interests.

I mean, if you have supernatural access to the secrets of the universe, I'm all ears. But, really, I think knowing the universe like a best mate is impossible.

I do however believe, as I said, that certain aspects of humankind, our neuro-psychology, our shared conditons does tend us towards sharing attitudes to certain actions that we would consider 'transgressive'. The real danger/hope is in elevating that to dominating ideologies that masquerade as 'truth'. This is a violence humans do to each other all the time, throughout history.