Moral relativism
-
Pax Mushu,
I would argue that in normal societies, it would be impossible to get people to feel revulsion at someone giving to charity, bar some kind of mass brainwashing. The altruistic tendency of humans is innate. Corrupting this would take a huge effort on a mass scale. But, I do understand what you're saying it is possible to condition people to believe that an opinion value is in fact a moral truth. The point I was making about individual relativism is that it isn't an ethical theory. Just because I've concocted x as moral, it doesn't follow that x is in fact a moral thing to do. For instance, I may insist that stabbing someone with a knife is moral because it makes me feel good. But that is not a moral thing to do. That's the problem with individual relativism, there is no objective standard.
I would argue about the altruistic tendency of humans being innate. I'm curious as to why you would think so? It doesn't take much to choose between a choice of self service/survival for example contrasted with selflessness? Fewer people would go out of their way to save someone in a burning building or perhaps just help a broken down car on the side of the road. One would argue that's a sign of the times but I could counter with people's "innate" laziness/sluggishness towards a going out of their way momentum?I wouldn't say serving your guests tea is a 'cultural moral' but perhaps a cultural expression of the moral 'being a good host'. That's the moral being expressed. What beverage you serve will vary from culture to culture, but the moral will be the same treat your guests well.
Yeah sorry it wasn't clear but yes that is what it relates to as I explain later also the relativists that don't consider it a theory.Cultural relativism is a philosophy of sorts, but not an ethical theory, as conceded by the few that you've met. Why does it matter? The relativist cannot hold the moral high ground because he doesn't submit to a standard.
Moral relativist "Yo Mushu, those primitive Africans who chop off the genitals of girls need to be stopped, what they're doing is morally reprehensible!"
Mushu "Shutup, you're a relativist."
I would agree with you. There is this one person I knew, who actually didn't give a damn about anything much let alone morals...he just floated with the world in a state of zen. I found that fascinating. And I also couldn't argue with him, he'd just smile to the point that I felt it was my moral obligation to punch his nose in.Interesting thoughts. My opinion is that there is no neutrality, there is undoubtedly innate concepts we hold, particularly altruism. I find this to be intuitive, which is confirmed by the moral instructions I find in the kitab. Also, it is an unfounded premise that says 'how we feel' should determine what is morally acceptable. In fact, I would argue the opposite, in that it is moral standards that make us feel. You cannot feel guilty unless you've violated a moral standard you yourself believe in the moral precedes the emotion.
I completely agree with the "how we feel" crap. I was curious about how we can categorise what is innate though as I mention. If we don't for a minute bring in confirmation from the book, would your observations about such innate tendencies be enough to prove to yourself that such is the case? -
Peace sc
I would argue about the altruistic tendency of humans being innate. I'm curious as to why you would think so? It doesn't take much to choose between a choice of self service/survival for example contrasted with selflessness? Fewer people would go out of their way to save someone in a burning building or perhaps just help a broken down car on the side of the road. One would argue that's a sign of the times but I could counter with people's "innate" laziness/sluggishness towards a going out of their way momentum?
Self service/survival are also innate, so your counter has validity, as far as I'm concerned. However, I maintain that so is altruism.
When you ask 'why would you think so?' I'm assuming you mean other than quran? I take it we can agree that humans have the ability to act morally, and have a concept of morality?
Your question is how can we know that altruistic tendencies are innate. The word innate is sometimes confused to mean hardwired through genetics, but genetic factors are not the only thing that makes a characteristic innate. Social factors during psychological development bring about characteristics just as ineluctable as genetic make-up. So regardless if we are genetically inclined to be altruistic, or whether we learn these traits as social creatures during our psychological development, the net result is the same we are altruistic creatures. Your point regarding the thin line between selfishness and selflessness is true, but not relevant to the point I was making about moral feelings. We may choose to drive past an unfortunate motorist who has broken down, but that doesn't mean we don't feel a pang of guilt when we do so, or at least a feeling of sympathy. We have an ability to empathise with others due to our innate altruistic tendencies. And even if a person did drive past someone who had broken down and felt nothing whatsoever, that doesn't show that empathy is not innate, it could mean that that particular person is less sensitive or receptive to other peoples' suffering. And the absence of guilt or empathy doesn't imply that driving past a broken down motorist is moral, no it is immoral.
I was curious about how we can categorise what is innate though as I mention. If we don't for a minute bring in confirmation from the book, would your observations about such innate tendencies be enough to prove to yourself that such is the case?
Evolutionary biologists confirm that reciprocal altruism is fact amongst animals and would have no doubt been a evolutionary trait amongst human ancestors. This explains, on a genetic level, why humans show altruistic traits, which on the face of it seems to contradict the 'survival of the fittest' theory of evolution. So I see empirical and scientific evidence of innate moral considerations in humans.
I hope I'm clear in that I don't believe we are all innately gifted with acting moral all the time, merely that we have the innate characteristic of being moral, just like we have the innate characteristic of self service and survival. Some of us are more selfish than others, not because we have a natural handicap in our moral nature, but because we choose to allow our selfish nature take precedence. The more we practise upright behaviour, the stronger the tendency it is to be moral. This is true of all human characteristics.
There is this one person I knew, who actually didn't give a damn about anything much let alone morals...he just floated with the world in a state of zen. I found that fascinating. And I also couldn't argue with him, he'd just smile to the point that I felt it was my moral obligation to punch his nose in.
laugh
Given that your 'zen friend' would be indifferent to you punching him in the nose (after all, he is in a state of zen), there may be an argument that there are no moral considerations for the well-being of his nose, and therefore nothing morally wrong with punching him...
-
I think there are moral values that are innate, but it is when values are weighted against other values that we come in conflict. It is praiseworthy to attempt to save somebody who is burning, but if you have children to feed at home and risk loosing job or income because you get maimed, you do have a conflict. It is this possibility of conflicting moral obligations that gives a cover to the seepage of relativism in men's attitudes, so that even when no moral conflict arises we still think relatively, because it offers a cover for our failings or suspected failings.
Salaam
-
Peace all,
Self service/survival are also innate, so your counter has validity, as far as I'm concerned. However, I maintain that so is altruism.
When you ask 'why would you think so?' I'm assuming you mean other than quran? I take it we can agree that humans have the ability to act morally, and have a concept of morality?
Your question is how can we know that altruistic tendencies are innate. The word innate is sometimes confused to mean hardwired through genetics, but genetic factors are not the only thing that makes a characteristic innate. Social factors during psychological development bring about characteristics just as ineluctable as genetic make-up. So regardless if we are genetically inclined to be altruistic, or whether we learn these traits as social creatures during our psychological development, the net result is the same we are altruistic creatures. Your point regarding the thin line between selfishness and selflessness is true, but not relevant to the point I was making about moral feelings. We may choose to drive past an unfortunate motorist who has broken down, but that doesn't mean we don't feel a pang of guilt when we do so, or at least a feeling of sympathy. We have an ability to empathise with others due to our innate altruistic tendencies. And even if a person did drive past someone who had broken down and felt nothing whatsoever, that doesn't show that empathy is not innate, it could mean that that particular person is less sensitive or receptive to other peoples' suffering. And the absence of guilt or empathy doesn't imply that driving past a broken down motorist is moral, no it is immoral.
Thank you for explaining. I agree with you, that it's simultaneously valid which brings up huruf's point in the post. I guess I was trying to drive the discussion towards that somehow, I apologise DI hope I'm clear in that I don't believe we are all innately gifted with acting moral all the time, merely that we have the innate characteristic of being moral, just like we have the innate characteristic of self service and survival. Some of us are more selfish than others, not because we have a natural handicap in our moral nature, but because we choose to allow our selfish nature take precedence. The more we practise upright behaviour, the stronger the tendency it is to be moral. This is true of all human characteristics.
Agreed of course.Given that your 'zen friend' would be indifferent to you punching him in the nose (after all, he is in a state of zen), there may be an argument that there are no moral considerations for the well-being of his nose, and therefore nothing morally wrong with punching him...
Believe me, I tried to moonlight as a relativist just to get moral satisfaction. My conscience got the better of me that one time, sadly.I think there are moral values that are innate, but it is when values are weighted against other values that we come in conflict. It is praiseworthy to attempt to save somebody who is burning, but if you have children to feed at home and risk loosing job or income because you get maimed, you do have a conflict.
Exactly, but I would amend that to bring in Mushu's wording of being moral.It is this possibility of conflicting moral obligations that gives a cover to the seepage of relativism in men's attitudes, so that even when no moral conflict arises we still think relatively, because it offers a cover for our failings or suspected failings.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here but will take a go at responding to what I think it means (please clarify if needed) I think you might be saying that continual conflicting moral obligations run the risk of it being a danger in the sense of us deliberately (or not based on habitual usage; subconsciously e.g.) using that as a "get out" card in situations where we don't need to. In which case, interesting and I would agree def. The other way it sounds is like you might mean that conflicting moral obligations is a bad thing somehow/ in our control so to say? and should be avoided or that there is a way to avoid it at all? I don't think that makes sense so I'd go with the former. -
I think you might be saying that continual conflicting moral obligations run the risk of it being a danger in the sense of us deliberately (or not based on habitual usage; subconsciously e.g.) using that as a "get out" card in situations where we don't need to. In which case, interesting and I would agree def.
I agree with this point as well. handshake
-
Salaam, Savage carrot. You understood it right. Human weakness is always present and we may draw on legitimate reasons to cover the impulse to act in a way that we consciously or unconsciously know it is not legitimate. It is a way of lying to ourselves.
On the other hand, legitimate conflict is rather common. There are times when we honestly do not know which is best. For instance, bringing up children, particularly difficult children, puts us in a spot some times for years, where we do not know whether we are too lenient for lack of courage or whether we are so because we legitimately fear that lack of leniency may be worse. Just for the conflict and the crucifying it means, I think we should get some forgiveness for other errors.
Salaam
-
Thank you for the clarification )
-
Peace
I didn't read all the posts so excuse me for skipping anything
so what is the opposite of moral relativism?
Do you not believe individuals have different morals? I think it?s immoral to go on doing intimate sexual scenes as a tv actor (my opinion) another person believes no harm in it. we have different morals of what is lewd and what is acceptable? is this not morals?
anyway i think with ?moral relativism? there is some sort of societal benchmark that refrains people from doing things i.e. If a person believes X to be moral, it is moral in their mind however due to social construct and it?s unacceptability it is deemed immoral.
i'm a lil confused what is the difference between individual relativism and morals? Are you claiming morals are universal we all have the same backbone?
It is natural to assume that the opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, yet this is not necessarily true. The quran can be considered the yardstick for morality, yet it is not absolute in its moral instruction. The message of the quran can be considered to advocate moral universalism, with elements of moral absolutism. For example, the quran tells us to use the phases of the moon to determine months, yet one cannot be considered immoral if he determines the months through some other method. That person may well be missing out on profound wisdom of the quran, but his morality would not necessarily be up for questioning.
that's a weird example P because moon/months aren't exactly a moral issue?
Yet the quran also tells us that there is morality that is universal, and has remained silent on its application. Does that mean that where the quran has remained silent, it allows us humans to concoct our own concepts of morality? We see examples of this in traditional Islam, where moral obligations are conjured out of thin air, then attributed to Allah. The only coherent position is that morality must encompass everything we do, and the opinion values we attribute as morality must be guided by quranic principles, which is the yardstick for mankind.
we mustn't be blind, even people who follow Quran only do this (concoct our own concepts of morality).
-
Peace Sarah
I didn't read all the posts so excuse me for skipping anything
so what is the opposite of moral relativism?
Moral absolutism.
Do you not believe individuals have different morals?
There's a difference between objective moral values and subjective value opinions. People have different subjective value opinions about what they consider is moral. Many people are wrong i.e. they behave immorally yet claim they are behaving morally.
I think it?s immoral to go on doing intimate sexual scenes as a tv actor (my opinion) another person believes no harm in it. we have different morals of what is lewd and what is acceptable? is this not morals?
This is an example of two different subjective value opinions. The point I'm making is that for the moral relativist, both opinions have validity. However, as an ethical theory, this is bunk. There is a moral thing to do for an actor on screen, and I'm arguing that this is objective. Just because two people hold two differing opinions about what is moral, it doesn't follow that both of them are right, or even that both of them have validity of any sort. There is always a moral way to behave, and the aim of the upright human being is to ascertain what it is.
anyway i think with ?moral relativism? there is some sort of societal benchmark that refrains people from doing things i.e. If a person believes X to be moral, it is moral in their mind however due to social construct and it?s unacceptability it is deemed immoral.
Agreed.
i'm a lil confused what is the difference between individual relativism and morals? Are you claiming morals are universal we all have the same backbone?
Yes, that is what I am claiming. That is the only ethical theory that has any coherence. Otherwise, you're left with the problematic position that suggests some people can behave immorally simply because they don't feel it is immoral e.g. some societies can cut off little girls' genitals because they think it is moral. If you are a moral relativist, you have no right to protest against such vulgar acts. What moral high ground can you hold, if you believe morals are relative? No, moral uprightness is universal, and only the one who accepts this can speak out against immoral behaviour.
Individual relativism is a theory that suggests something is moral as long as the person thinks it is moral. So, in fact, it isn't an ethical theory at all, because ethics tell us how we should behave. So the difference with morals is that morals are, by definition, a standard which must have at least some rigidity. Individual relativism has no such rigidity because it accepts the subjective value opinions of the individual as completely valid.
that's a weird example Tongue because moon/months aren't exactly a moral issue?
Yea, that was my point that the quran is not exclusively about moral instruction, it contains social laws as well. My point was that someone who doesn't use the quranic calendar can't be considered immoral, because it wasn't a moral instruction in the first place.
we mustn't be blind, even people who follow Quran only do this (concoct our own concepts of morality).
Agreed.
-
do not think morals are different for different people or from different points of view. It is the actual implmentation of morals which raises problems and differences. In mny, most situations, it is not a simple matter of applying one principle, but the complese matter of applying several principles. Even with the best of morals, persons are not God and cannot do everything and be good at the same time with everybody. One has to choose what comes first, second and last. That is where moral agony comes from. Should one attend to one's parents who are old and cannot move, or to ones children who are struggling with a hep of problems and near colapse, anc who on top of it live very very far from ones parents so that you cannot pendle that easily even if you have the strength or the possibility to do so?
Salaam