What are your thoughts on moral relativism?

[ScarletMacaw99]

Personally, I react quite positively to the idea, mostly because I'm quite disgusted by people who are "too moral" and who think less of you whenever you commit victimless crimes.

On the other hand though, I do recognize that some basic instincts of morality are necessary for a stable society. At this point though, I'm more disgusted with people who act too "morally". (of course they're moral about the wrong areas - there are definitely some other areas where they really could use more morality).

[Glacial]

I generally agree with you. Morals are necessary to keep society running smoothly; however, I certainly don't think that every person can adhere to every moral, of course. Morals have too many variables (religion, culture, background, and the list could go on and on).

Some people in religions decide they will pick and choose what morals they will follow. One has to ask, "are certain morals false?" I certainly believe so, just consider some that certain cultures and religions that institute some morals, I find some quite out there; however, they are very real and valid to others.

Also, morals can be relative--one act can be wrong for one person and conflict with their beliefs while the same act would not be viewed as immoral by someone else based on their beliefs--to each person, there is validity in their stance.

Also, something that I always used to think about was the difference between the morals people claim to adhere to compared to which ones they actually adhere to in private. I went to church when I was younger and a major thing I observed was the difference between how people acted depending on their setting and "who was watching" and this was not just the kids/teenagers--this was the adults too--they can be very different depending on the company they are in--very two-faced.

Specific morals depend on the person; for example, some peoples morals just consist of respsecting humanity, while others have morals that are linked exclusively to religion.

Then, people start to question the exact parameters of a particular "moral" and as we know the list can go on and on: is it always wrong to lie? is violence ever ok? when is that sperm and egg actually a human? for some religions: is it still considered "pre-marital sex" during the engagment period, or do you have to wait until you have a marriage certificate in-hand. We can't begin to really define every moral situation and some things will be ok for some and not others. everyone can have different perceptions.

[fredbloggs02]

"should I be moral?" I'm learning this very subject in philosophy at the moment.

"They're certainly entitled to think that, they're entitled to full respect for their opinions... but before I can live with other folks I've got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a persons conscience."-Atticus.

Is there really a higher moral standpoint though? When you do something that seemingly benefits noone, not even your own conscience why do it?... Why adhere to a set of principles when they contradict themselves depending on what set you choose? If you choose to contradict your own judgement to adhere to a set of principles, this still spells of you I think, this spells of discipline even if the contradiction or self destructive principles make no sense to you or any other. I believe a set of principles make you a strong, disciplined individual, not a weak mind. To some it doesn't matter how you finish it matters in what manner you do. I would rather finish last with mine intact than first, any other way(massive lol at the moral snobbishness of this piece of writing). If you would have all the riches of the world without ever questioning how you got there, people will see that and I do not envy you. To me it seems a hollow existence to be an artist to sell paintings. There are riches in introspection even if it doesn't lead to any form of morality I feel, that's why a lot of people with Sa interest me because they question everything about themselves....For the most part. If to know and to act are one and the same that is the making for a very boring person to me. Boring people do irritate and confuse me at the same time at their unimaginative facade at deeper impressions of the world as they view it. Despite that when questioned I won't always know how to answer, you can tell when a person never had the intention of understanding things more intelsely, it's too much work for some and I never know quite how to box these people who I find slightly irrelevent I won't lie, they are more work than they're worth lol. Black and white thinking point for me now!!!

"When your stomach is empty it is a disgrace to feel hunger." I find this very interesting. Self-destructive principle or self-serving? If there was no food to be had this Bushido principle would serve you even if you denied hunger one day when there was, to let it lead you. So a set of principles don't have to correspond to societies moralistic view, presuming your society depends on your need to eat, most do lol.

"ah! How in moments like these our heart doth grudge the light of life."

"Had not in hour of peace it learned to lightly look on life."

Off the subject or moralism long ago I feel so I'll leave it.. Bushido has always inspired the child in and fascinated me so if any of you know more about it feel free to message me.

[Black Dog]

I don't exactly believe in it. What I think is that everything genuinely "immoral" can by definition be traced back to the aggression principle; that one being shouldn't commit acts of aggression against another. By this standard, (for example) anyone who calls homosexuality "immoral" is demonstrably and objectively wrong, rendering a resort to "moral relativity" unnecessary. On the other hand, genital mutilation is a clear act of aggression against women, and by my standard objectively immoral.

Where moral relativism is necessary is in the rather broad margins, where "aggression" doesn't have a clear meaning or where it conflicts with other concepts like "necessity" or "assertiveness." For example, I'm not saying airport security should racially profile Muslims, but I think the competing arguments on this issue are too strong for one side to call the other "immoral."

[Ape in space]

Morality IS relative, in that there is no ultimate standard for what is moral and what is not. Morality should be based on practical considerations such as recognizing that one's own self does not have a privileged place in the grand scheme of things over other people, so one should treat others in a way that respects their equal status - ie. consider how another other person feels rather than just how you feel. This is what should form the basis for compassion, not a claim of an absolute, unchangeable standard. After all, every group will have a different idea of what such an absolute standard should be, so it's not like having an absolute standard helps anything.

[Misanthropic]

I'm not exactly sure what 'moral relativism' means. I don't believe in any objective morality but I do believe that empathy can and should be a universal basis for moral decision making. Doing X in all possible circumstances isn't always good or bad but being anti-empathetic, knowingly causing other people unnecessary stress or depriving them of happiness, is always wrong. Am I a moral relativist?

My view of morality can be easily summed up without great detail : an action is morally good if the intended consequence is to decrease (unnecessary) suffering or increase happiness and morally bad if the actor knowingly causes unnecessary suffering or deprives someone of happiness. Happiness is the only intrinsic good and suffering is the only intrinsic bad.

This is what should form the basis for compassion, not a claim of an absolute, unchangeable standard.

Isn't compassion itself an absolute, unchangeable standard?

[Cyber Lume]

Well, my morals (and my reason to adhere to them) stem from my religious beliefs, so, yes, they are a fixed standard in my opinion. As an imperfect human being who makes mistakes, I'm not always the best representative of my morals; but I know what I believe and try to live up to them as best I can.

I'm always wary when people start saying, "there is no right or wrong...." I know there are appropriate uses for this, but it often seems to be a means to justify whatever the user of this phrase wants to do. I'm not saying that's why people believe in moral relativism. I just think some consideration should be taken when using this approach.

[Paul]

Right and wrong are context-dependent, what's right in one context can be wrong in another. What made sense in 1400's Europe may not be a good moral rule for 2010. The importance of moral relativism is the ability to recognize that and not stick to overly simplistic rules that may have been devised for totally different circumstances that what you're facing.

Some religious morals that are regressively offensive now may have been progressive for their time, the problem is when people of faith focus on obeying the exact words of rules and don't stop to ponder how those words fit into the context of the society in which they were written and what the progressive intent behind them may have been.

[Belshazzar]

http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f133/morality-the-realm-of-science-102622/#post1592488

[Misanthropic]

Right and wrong are context-dependent, what's right in one context can be wrong in another.

Yes, but in order to determine when an action is right or wrong, you have to refer to a fixed value system.

What made sense in 1400's Europe may not be a good moral rule for 2010.

The treatment of Jews in 15th century Europe was just as insensible then as it would be today. More people realize that today.

The importance of moral relativism is the ability to recognize that and not stick to overly simplistic rules that may have been devised for totally different circumstances that what you're facing.

My understanding is that moral relativism rejects the idea that there are universal and/or objective standards we can use to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action, rather than simply 'considering' an action to be right or wrong. I agree that there is no objective, moral authority we can refer to for validation but there are universal standards (happiness and suffering) that dictate an action as good or bad regardless of whether or not the actor considers his or her behavior to be good or bad. Female genital mutilation isn't wrong because Western culture frowns on it, it's wrong because 1) it causes infants to suffer unnecessarily and 2) when that infant becomes a woman, having been circumcised will limit her capacity to experience sexual pleasure. The fact that FGM is generally accepted in some cultures is irrelevant, it is true that the practice causes suffering and deprives people of happiness. It's not the act that is wrong, it's the consequence, suffering and loss of sexual pleasure, that is bad (if, in a hypothetical scenario, it could be guaranteed that 1) the procedure would be painless, 2) it would not lessen the girl's capacity to experience sexual pleasure when she became an adult and 3) the woman would not regret or resent having been circumcised as an infant then I would view it as morally neutral).