Are morals relative or absolute?

RealEstateKing

are not absolute, but there are certain things that most cultures would agree are wrong.

Some of these things (murder, theft) etc, come from the fact that man is a social animal: We recognise that there are certain things we wouldnt like done to us, and so we make an agreement with another group of humans (usually family and then tribe to begin with), that we wont do these things to each other. Eventually the amount of people that we have this agreement with becomes larger and we have the beginnings of a nation/kingdom or whatever. And that's still the case: Murder is bad in a civil context (within your own society), but positively encouraged if that society is at war with somebody else.

Other morals are ones that people decide on later on: Restrictions on sex/diet for example are usually based on what would be good practice in the places/time they came from (eating pork before fridges were invented is not such a great idea) or shagging anybody you feel like when there's no condoms or the pill invented.

DadaKopf

are not absolute, but there are certain things that most cultures would agree are wrong.

Yeah. This seems different to me than rarr!'s statement. More... acceptable.

raah!

I don't think you are even reading my posts. When I say morals should be "universal" I mean that the only way for people to have morals is to accept them as fixed. And then judge other people and oneself based on these morals. If people disagree with your morals, they are immoral. That is the type of "universal" morality I was talking about, but obviously I didn't explain that enough as I didn't see it as an important part of my post.As I have said, what my posts were about is trying to find a reason for a relativist to be moral. Joe has provided me with a nice link and I will read that when I have time. I have read crime and punishment (there was a reason I used granny examples).

If however you do not accept one fixed set of rules, you can change them as you please and then that's not morality. The title was "absoloute" perhaps this was the word I should have used.

"you think good and bad is the same for all people" etc. Again if you look at it how I originally intended it. Then people can act immorally out of ignorance. While different people will still have d ifferent ideas of good and bad, some will be wrong . It there for is not self contradictory.

For example, by going against their own set commandments, the catholic church was acting immorally.

Now if you don't accept morals as fixed, and say "well that's their society so it's ok for them", then we get back to the whole point of whats the point in being moral at all if it doesn't suit you.

Joe1919

Just note that there is a difference in regard to 'relativism of judgments' and 'relativism of principles/standards'?

E.g. Buying the most reliable car.

A says that one ought to buy a Toyota
B says that one ought to buy a Mercedes

A's argument is: one ought always to buy the most reliable car
Toyota are the most reliable cars
therefore one ought to buy a Toyota

B's argument is: one ought always to buy the most reliable car
Mercedes are the most reliable cars
therefore one ought to buy a Mercedes

Note both subscribe to the same overall principle (Buying the most reliable car.) but each has a different factual belief about cars so each makes a different judgment. The factual divergence explains the different judgments and new information might remove that divergence and bring the judgments into agreement.

Similarly, when it comes to Morality, many people may desire 'the good' in terms of peace and happiness and harmony but might have different judgements about what actually is 'the good' and how this is to be actually achieved.

DadaKopf

When I say morals should be "universal" I mean that the only way for people to have morals is to accept them as fixed. And then judge other people and oneself based on these morals.

So you're a relativist. OK. And, sure, people/societies tend to pretend that morality is true for ever and forever shall be to establish allegiance.

I disagree with you that morality (generally speaking) has to be like this.

Did you know the Quakers don't have a fixed morality as such? Their belief system is designed to be open to transformation through being in constant communication with God. It's interesting, because they've managed to balance moral stability with openness to change.

raah!

They're in communication with god though........ that is probably different .

Well, if ye have any more reccommended reading I would be happy to have it. So far in terms of philosophy I have just read lots of dostoyevsky (but that's not philosophy , strictly speaking), sophie's world, and now I'm reading bertrand russell's history of western philosophy.

DadaKopf

That's a good start alright! When I became interested in philosophy, around fourth year in secondary school, I began with Sophie's World and went on to ravenously engorge myself on Albert Camus. By sixth year, I wanted to nothing other than study philosophy.

I was introduced to so much more in my degree and beyond. Russell's history of philosophy is just one man's interpretation; worth reading but it's told from a particular perspective, by someone with a very distinct philosophical theory.

As an introduction to Continental philosophy, Richard Kearney's 'Movements in Modern European Philosophy' is excellent - very dense, but short, summaries of key thinkers' contributions that stand up to re-reading. It ranges from Husserl to Marx to de Saussure to Ricoeur to Adorno to Derrida.

There are other influential currents. The analytical school, including Wittgenstein, WVO Quine; pragmatism, indcluding Wilfrid Sellars; Deleuze and Guattari are very fashionable. Ah, there's loads. People here will suggest others.

They're in communication with god though........ that is probably different.

Yes, I know. But what I mean to say is they don't rely on the Ten Commandments, or have a fixed doctrine treated as universal law. In other words, things are inherently open to modification and change over time. It also demonstrates that communities can have very committed social values (especially in the case of Quakers) while treating morality as process, unfixed.

RealEstateKing

If however you do not accept one fixed set of rules, you can change them as you please and then that's not morality.

Not true: Take, as an example, murder.

Murder is wrong. Now what if somebody is about to detonate a nuclear bomb that will kill everybody in New York? Do you shoot him? Of course you do.

Lying is wrong: Your plain looking teenage daughter asks you "Daddy am I beautiful?" Do you tell her the truth? Of course not.

In both of those cases, acting "morally" would have lead to a worse outcome than acting "immorally."

Morals are of course relative - relative to the real world in which they take place. Do not take this to mean "Hey we can do anything we want, cause it's all relative."

raah!

heh heh, yeah I definatly noticed that with russell. He really hates nietzsch, but he's fairly clear about it at least , liek you know when it's his opinion, so it's not propaganda or anything. I think his comments and stuff make it alot more enjoyable though.

Joe1919

If you have broadband, I would recommend all the 'Bryan Magee' interviews that are available on YouTube. (paticularly John Searle on Wittgenstein and Stern on Nietzsche, but there all good and relatively easy to follow).

raah!

Sweet, I'll give em a blob right now (although a short blob as I must sleep for the leaving cert)

prawn

not sure if this will suit this particular thread as it isnt about whether morals are absolute or relative but it is relevant to morality sort of..


Right On the Leaving Cert forum a lad from my year whom I know but wouldn't consider my friend has admitted to cheating in his Leaving Cert by using a programmable calculator with a memory card. This is a calculator which is strictly prohibited and he was acutely aware of this fact.
So heres the moral dilemma that some ppl on that forum are facing. It seems a bit insignificant when compared to some, but it isnt hypothetical this is what I finds actually makes it interesting:

Surely cheating in a State exam is wrong (This is of course an assumption but this seems to be the general consensus and whilst im not sure if cheating is illegal it does have a punishment namely a ban from sitting state examinations for a number of years) . This lad has been cheating however he was not caught by the superintendent actually doing so. He has explixity stated that he cheated both online and to various members of our year group, I would go as far as to say he took pridew in telling people of his daring exploits.
With this calculator he would have been able to cheat in both maths papers and physics, im not sure what his other subject choices are.. He claims he has managed to achieve 500 points which would make him eligible for his college course.

1.Would it be wrong for him to get the place because he cheated?
2.Would it be wrong for another student who didnt cheat to miss out on a place on his course because they have less points?

Some students are contemplating reporting him to the CAO/ SEC...

3.If a fellow student reports him would they be doing something moral despite the fact that it will have disastrous consequences for this young man? Is taking the "moral high ground" here the right thing to do? are they right to report even though in doing so they could potentially ruin this guys life?

4. Or are they reporting him to make themselves feel moral and just indulging in the feeling of being in the "right"?


Sorry for the length of this post, but check out the thread its in the leaving cert forum, there are around 3 threads "I wrote a naughty subject" being the only one which is still open (before I went to lunch). The guys posting name was Salman85.. and I know im not being very clear but tel me what you think, apply your ideas to this real situation. Its like a terribly childish, but look to it as some sort of thought experiment thats actually real. And its worth a look only to see the developemnts of some ppls ideas relating to the subject

BTW Im a relativist and think that Absolute morals are Ideals and although they arent really teneble perhaps they are necesary... <-- ignore that just giver your thoughts on the above

Joe1919

Your friend should consider doing politics when he gets his 500 points!

On a serious note, google 'whistleblower dilemma' and you will see that this is a common ethical dilemma and the whistleblower, if he is not careful (unfortunately) often comes out worst than the original offender, so be careful and dont get into a personal fued with your class-mate.

Shinji Ikari

I myself am an atheist. If the god of the Judeo Christian religion existed he too would be a moral relativist. For example the message of the old testament if stone homosexuals, adulters ect. Yet in the New testament Jesus, who as part of the trinity is suppossed to be one and the same with Jehova, rejects such callous actions.So even if the god of the bible exists he dones moral relativism.

Moral relativism can, like any man made notion or object, can be used for good or bad. For example until the last hundred years or so slavery was considered the social norm,as was imprisioning homosexuals, which in many ways was responsible for the death of Oscar Wilde. Now slavery is immoral and l.b.t.g. rights are recognised. Sadly moral relativism can, like a knife, be used for evil. For example the vile treatment of Jews in the third Reich. Our morals are always evolving, for the most part in the right direction.

corkstudent

Saying morals can't be objective because one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, because cultures evolve different ethical value systems, is like saying Science is subjective just because there are so many different theories that often clash with one another.

The fact is you'll still see some common themes, and the others we can reason as to what would be good or bad. Exactly how we should reason them, is something we haven't quite figured out yet, but Utilitarianism is a good base.

Shinji Ikari

corkstudent wrote: »

Saying morals can't be objective because one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, because cultures evolve different ethical value systems, is like saying Science is subjective just because there are so many different theories that often clash with one another.

The fact is you'll still see some common themes, and the others we can reason as to what would be good or bad. Exactly how we should reason them, is something we haven't quite figured out yet, but Utilitarianism is a good base.

I would disagree with your analogy as morals are man made and you cant apply the scientific method to morality as you can to ,say, biology.

ChocolateSauce

I had a letter published on the Irish Times (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2008/0623/1214047001005.html) which touches on this subject. I use it as one of my arguments.

Generally, they are absolute. Something cannot be wrong for one person/in one state or juristiction and not wrong in another; a thing is either wrong or it isn't.

In Italy, a man tied his daughter to a chair and beat her because she drank alcohol. Is this wrong? Make up your mind before you read futher.

He was cleared of any wrong doing by a court because he was a Muslim, and in Muslim countries this would be acceptable. If he were a Christian, he would have been prosecuted.

A BBC reporter in Afghanistan recently interviewed a man who sold his daughter into marraige to pay off his debts. When asked if he felt shame for this, he replied "No, the real shame would be if my neighbours saw the debt collectors calling to my house". In his society, this is ok. In ours, it not. Which is right? Let us transcend the ideas of culture and religion, and use logic. Did he own her? Was she his to sell? Did he even consult her? The answer is, of course, no to all of them.


Of course there are instances not defined by where you life where they are reletive. Is it wrong to execute someone? I think so. What if you're a band of 50 shipwrecked people on a desert island with no help coming, and there's a lunatic among you who will kill you all at the first chance. Then, execution might be justified, if there was no other way to protect the group.

Over all, logic, not tradition or misguided multi-cultural flip-flopping must be the deciding factor.

Standman

Well I was never really concerned with cultural differences in morals, just such questions like; Is it immoral to steal medicine when the purpose is to save a sick child?

To be honest I don't think they can be absolute or relative, I think maybe we have to look beyond morals in order to answer the question.

Sardonicat

The problem with relativism, and I think the reason why the cultural analogy is being used so often on this thread is that, ultimately, relativism has no foundations whatsoever. If certain behaviour is excused on the basis of it's cultural context ( and I include this to mean time in history) than nothing is wrong, is it? And for that matter, nothing is right.

I can justify any action I want by locating it in broader cultural norms that exist or existed at some point in our history, or may exist at some time in the future. This same behaviour can be criticised for precisely the same reasons, somewhere or sometime it is/was considered wrong.

This of course, does not answer our question, because, if morals are absoloute, where do we find them and how do we know which ones are "real"?

What if you steal the medication and save that child and he grows up to become a killer? You are not to know this of course, but does that make stealing the medication wrong retrospectively?

What a quagmire! And this is why I LOVE philosophy!

Standman

Here's a good video on the subject:

Sardonicat

Thats an intersesting video, Standman, but I'm not convinced. I'm not so sure that psychological states exist in the world of objective fact. Sure, they are facts, but by their very nature they are subjective surely?

Maybe I don't fully get the argument, it is only a short clip.

brianthebard

morals have always been relative,the very word derives from mores,which means custom.they have never been intended to be applied universally.

Standman

brianthebard wrote: »

morals have always been relative,the very word derives from mores,which means custom.they have never been intended to be applied universally.

If morals are relative then how can you be blame someone who steals from you? Would you not be forcing your morals on them?

St_Crispin

brianthebard wrote: »

morals have always been relative,the very word derives from mores,which means custom.they have never been intended to be applied universally.

If a 2000 year old dictionary says it's so then it must be.
I know some people who quote another really old book called the bible. You two should meet up and have a biig book bitch fight to see who's right. (My money's on the bible, they can be really big and hurt when thrown).

1) just because different cultures have different morals values does not mean that morals are reletive. There could still be a universal moral truth, just one society could be wrong.

2) if all morals are reletive than there can be no progress. NO reason for a society to evolve beyond what's nessecary for it self to survive.

3) if you state that all cultures morals are relative, then you are saying that we shouldn't criticise them. We shouldn't judge based on our values. You effectively get rid of every rule that exists in other moral theories and replace it with tolerance. But by doing that you are imposing a universal moral standard of tolerance. You can't on one hand say that there are no universal morals and yet state that tolerance is one. That's contradictory. And if you mearly state that it's our understanding that relevetism is good, but we can't impose it on another society, then it's your opinion your stating, not a moral theory. For any theory it has to be universal application to be valid.

Reletivism evolved when cultures came into contact with other cultures. It cause introspection and criticism of oneself. One gained tolerance of others and valued their cultural identities.

But this doesn't mean that relevitism is a moral theory. It just means that rather than say tolerance is a virtue, it is the only universal law.

Miacc

relative, absolutely.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/16
see Zimbardo talk on this, if you're interested...he did the study on the stanford prison experiment, often talked about recently in teh context of Abu Ghraib.

... look at cross cultural variation in what's viewed as normal (some of these issues on which people differ could be considered moral issues)...

Milgram's Experiments on conformity to authority

all interesting to consider on this one.