What is "moral relativism"?

[Upchurch]

...or rather, what isn't moral relativism?

Listening, as I sometimes do, to conservative talk radio, I occasionally hear the term "moral relativism" thrown around. Generally, it is used to describe liberals and meant to show their weak moral character.

However, isn't all morality relative? Even within most religions there are rarely any moral absolutes. In Christianity, for example, it is sometimes okay to kill depending on the circumstances.

So, does "moral relativism" have any actual meaning or is basically redundant?

 

[mummymonkey]

It does seem to get flung around as a kind insult. It is a hard position to maintain though and I doubt that anybody truly believes that all notions of what's right and wrong are acceptable.
If we found a previously unknown village in the Andes where they practiced human sacrifice would we allow it to continue? Should we? If we should then why not in Washington or London?

 

[Dancing David]

As was discussed in the Incest thread and many others. morals are relative and personal, they are defined by our cultures and ourselves.

There are those who are very uncomfortable with this stance, they want to believe that morals are absolute and always true.

Generaly this is code for: homo phobia and anti abortion.

As was discussed most recently in the Rape thread, there can be acts which are always wrong but considered moral in thier cultural context. Like certain Xians in Colorado who think it is pkay to be polygamists and force fourteen year old girls to be thier wives. i view it a child rape, they view it as sanctioned marriage.

 

[frisian]

It is redundant and I would think similiar to situational ethics.

 

[Pahansiri]

...or rather, what isn't moral relativism?

Listening, as I sometimes do, to conservative talk radio, I occasionally hear the term "moral relativism" thrown around. Generally, it is used to describe liberals and meant to show their weak moral character.

However, isn't all morality relative? Even within most religions there are rarely any moral absolutes. In Christianity, for example, it is sometimes okay to kill depending on the circumstances.

So, does "moral relativism" have any actual meaning or is basically redundant?

Are not conservative talk radio host and followers engaged in or support what is "moral relativism"?

“ drug addicts should all be put in jail” Rush

Thou shall not kill, unless there is oil profit involved or you wish to be the Governor with the record for executing the most inmates ever?

Thou shall not lie, unless you need to? etc

 

[hammegk]

I'd say moral relativists believe a man's actions (stemming from thoughts, donchaknow) are controlled not by the man himself, but by societal influences "Beyond his control".

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: What is "moral relativism"?

Are not conservative talk radio host and followers engaged in or support what is "moral relativism"?

Well, I was shooting for more of a philosophical discussion on the nature morality and wondering if there was a context in which "moral relativism" had any real meaning rather than delving into a political discussion about meangingless insults that particians throw at one another and their hypocracy in doing so.

 

[Upchurch]

I'd say moral relativists believe a man's actions (stemming from thoughts, donchaknow) are controlled not by the man himself, but by societal influences "Beyond his control".

That's not a context that I'm familiar with concerning the phrase. Can you give an example?

 

[The idea]

Even within most religions there are rarely any moral absolutes. In Christianity, for example, it is sometimes okay to kill depending on the circumstances.

What does that have to do with moral relativism?

It should be possible to distinguish between:
(a) One set of moral rules that is more complicated than you expected; and
(b) The claim that there are various, alternative sets of moral rules that produce mutually incompatible results and that all the results are equally legitimate.

Here is an astronomical analogy:

(a) Revolution of Large and Medium satellites: Direct (same direction as the planets) except Triton.

Now, you could try to use the existence of an "astronomical exception" to support the 1984 O'Brien point of view:

(b) "What are the stars? They are bits of fire a few kilometers away. [...] For certain purpose, of course, that is not true. When we navigate the ocean, or when we predict an eclipse, we often find it convenient to assume that the earth goes round the sun and that the stars are millions upon millions of kilometres away. But what of it? Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy? The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them. Do you suppose our mathematicians are unequal to it? Have you forgotten doublethink?"

 

[Upchurch]

What does that have to do with moral relativism?

So, is there any such thing as moral relativism, then? Or is anything that is label morally relative simply not understood in its complexity?

 

[Pahansiri]

That's not a context that I'm familiar with concerning the phrase. Can you give an example?

Perhaps he means "there is no form of free will TLOP made me do it'

 

[Upchurch]

Perhaps he means "there is no form of free will TLOP made me do it'

In which case, morality would be moot. Or, at least, the responsibility for immoral acts would be non-existant, I suppose.

 

[slimshady2357]

Upster, it just means that you don't believe that ther is some absolute source for morality (or I would prefer ethics).

If you believe that what is right and wrong is dictated by God, for instance, then you are not a moral relativist. If you believe that all men are born with a list of certain 'rights' that are unquestionable, then you are not a moral relativist.

Make sense?

You are an ethical relativist if you think all ethics are based on environment and upbringing.

You could be a combination of both.... well you would be an absolutist for some ethical questions and a relativist for others.

But your example of killing be allowed for some reasons in Christianity misses the mark. There would be a definite answer of what is right for every situation, and all the answers would come from God.

Adam

 

[The idea]

So, is there any such thing as moral relativism, then? Or is anything that is labelled morally relative simply not understood in its complexity?

Even within most religions there are rarely any moral absolutes. In Christianity, for example, it is sometimes okay to kill depending on the circumstances.

This is not an example of moral relativism. This simply indicates that the Christian rule on killing is more complicated than a blanket condemnation. That's hardly surprising. For example, war heroes who kill enemy soldiers in battle are not subject to criminal penalties for such killings.

Moral relativism is this:
The claim that various, alternative sets of moral rules that produce mutually incompatible results are all equally legitimate sets of moral rules.

You can probably find a mathematical crank who, when backed into a corner, will defend a "proof" by saying "well, it works for me."

 

[Pahansiri]

In which case, morality would be moot. Or, at least, the responsibility for immoral acts would be non-existant, I suppose.

So it would seem.

 

[hammegk]

Perhaps he means "there is no form of free will TLOP made me do it'

No, that's the materialist/atheist view, apparently your view (and Uppie's I guess): certainly not mine. Free will would be a bitch for ya'all, wouldn't it?

Example? Sure:

Homosex: Libs; as ok as all else-- let's teach "the kids" that lifestyle is as societally advantageous as any other and that private acts have no societal (adverse) consequences.

Non-libs: private acts may well have adverse consequences imposed by society, and among other choices celibacy is available.

In which case, morality would be moot. Or, at least, the responsibility for immoral acts would be non-existant, I suppose.

You got the materialist/atheist view down, anyway.

 

[Upchurch]

Okay, maybe the killing thing was a bad example, but it seems to me that a commandment like Exodus 20:13

Thou shalt not kill.

(no stipulations given) is basically inconsistant with, say, Leviticus 20:10

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Now, based on your definition:

Originally posted by The Idea

The claim that various, alternative sets of moral rules that produce mutually incompatible results are all equally legitimate sets of moral rules.

This seems to fit the defintion of moral relativism. In one instance, we are told that we are not allowed to kill and in another we are told that we are allowed to kill in a specific circumstance. That seems to fit the bill.

Worse, however, it is logically inconsistant:

Rule 1: ~kill
Rule 2: if adultry, then kill

But that's another thread topic.

 

[Upchurch]

You got the materialist/atheist view down, anyway.

Calm down, hammie. It was an "if, then" statement. I was just saying that if Pahansiri's guess was correct, then my question was pointless. That's all. Not everything is about materialism/immaterialism. You're as polarizing about that issue as many talk show hosts are about being liberal/conservative.

Example? Sure:

Homosex: Libs; as ok as all else-- let's teach "the kids" that lifestyle is as societally advantageous as any other and that private acts have no societal (adverse) consequences.

Non-libs: private acts may well have adverse consequences imposed by society, and among other choices celibacy is available.

I still don't understand. What you've presented are two different views by two different groups of people on one subject. Wouldn't moral relativism refer to inconsistant opinions on a moral subject based on the circumstances by a single group of people? For example, if liberals thought female homosexuality were okay but male homosexuality was not.

I'm not saying that's the case, just trying to make an example.

 

[The idea]

a commandment like
"Thou shalt not kill" (no stipulations given)
is inconsistent with, say,
"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

Now, this seems to fit the definition of moral relativism. In one instance, we are told that we are not allowed to kill and in another we are told that we are allowed to kill in a specific circumstance.

Given that those rules were actually enforced somewhere, it is fairly obvious that either some kind of stipulation needs to be added to the first rule you quoted or some kind of reformulation is required.

This is a matter of communication. Some people repeat the word "not" for emphasis, but you typically can tell the difference between emphasis and denial.

Consider this explanation of leap years:

(1) If the year is divisible by 4 then it's a leap year.
(2) However, if the year is divisible by 100 then it's not a leap year.
(3) On the other hand, if the year is divisible by 400 then it actually is a leap year after all.

Now, technically that may involve a contradiction, but the above formulation may be clearer than a single legalistic statement.

 

[spejic]

Now, technically that may involve a contradiction, but the above formulation may be clearer than a single legalistic statement.

The problem is that after you follow all the rules for determining a leap year (even if there is a temporary inconsistency), you end up with a certain judgement of leap-yearness or not. But you can read the Bible and still end up uncertain if you are supposed to do a certain action or not.