NationStates Jolt Archive

If you break it down, a lot of these political aguments, and political ideals, and even religious ideas, break down to which of these you believe in.

So do you believe in:

Moral Relativism: Morality has a lot of gray areas, and that there is no absolute right or wrong in this world. Good and Evil are relative and/or something to throw around as a joke or to make a point seem stronger.

Transcending Moral Authority: There is black and white right and wrong in this world, and good and evil do exist, and every person, underneath it all, can feel, if only irrationally, that something is right or wrong.

Is this true? Are these definitions right?

Of course even the division you've given is not black and white...

Suppose a 'moral relativist' says that right and wrong are whatever a society defines them to be. It would be observed that societies in general define things that lead to their own persistence as 'right', and things that lead to their own destruction as 'wrong' (hence why in most societies treason is regarded as the most serious crime). Now societies change over time, and it may be the case (though probably isn't) that any society, anywhere in the universe, will eventually develop into a certain form (we could call it a Utopia, but that isn't necessarily the case - the society in Brave New World, for example, seems to be one that couldn't be changed once it had formed). In which case, there is a sense in which right and wrong as defined by that society could be called absolute right and wrong.

yeah I suppose but really you can subscribe to both or at least not try and force your belief of morality on everyone but live by those morals yourself something more christians need to do. I believe in a higher power or God as he is called and that indeed their is evil (saddam would classify among many others like hitler evil not megalomaniacs etc) and that certain things like smoking,drinking overeating are bad for my health and thus wrong. That sex outside of marriage and homosexuality are wrong I live by such things myself personally and preach them to others but do not force etc.

I guess I am not a relativist but more the latter

interesting site...

http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/mrelativism.html

I've just thought of another way of blurring the lines. Suppose you define something as 'good' if defining it thus would lead to it continuing to be defined good in future.

I'd better give an example: if we defined 'killing random people' as good, and hence didn't punish it, we'd expect it to happen a lot more - however, a society defining 'killing random people' as good is not persistent in the face of a society that defines it as bad (and hence acts to stop it), so in future it would be defined as bad. In contrast, if we defined it as bad it would remain bad, so we can say in some sense that 'killing random people' is bad in absolute terms.

The thing is, we probably can't do that in most circumstances, as whether something is persistent is likely to be dependent on context, and it's also possible that there is an issue without a stable solution - societies defining it as good will always coexist with those defining it as bad.

So this viewpoint regards some things as absolute and some as relative.

interesting site...

http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/mrelativism.html*bookmarks* Thanks!

I've just thought of another way of blurring the lines. Suppose you define something as 'good' if defining it thus would lead to it continuing to be defined good in future.

I'd better give an example: if we defined 'killing random people' as good, and hence didn't punish it, we'd expect it to happen a lot more - however, a society defining 'killing random people' as good is not persistent in the face of a society that defines it as bad (and hence acts to stop it), so in future it would be defined as bad. In contrast, if we defined it as bad it would remain bad, so we can say in some sense that 'killing random people' is bad in absolute terms.

The thing is, we probably can't do that in most circumstances, as whether something is persistent is likely to be dependent on context, and it's also possible that there is an issue without a stable solution - societies defining it as good will always coexist with those defining it as bad.

So this viewpoint regards some things as absolute and some as relative.It's not so much what society says.. not at all... it's about what one's conscience says.

It's not so much what society says.. not at all... it's about what one's conscience says.

Well then there's another distinction - right and wrong as an individual definition or right and wrong as a societal definition? Of course individuals can have ideas of right and wrong different from those of the society of which they are part, but individuals are influenced by society and it is society that evolves (of course the source of variation driving this evolution is the differing ideas of individuals, but the 'natural selection' takes place on the societal level).

It's not so much what society says.. not at all... it's about what one's conscience says.

Well then there's another distinction - right and wrong as an individual definition or right and wrong as a societal definition? Of course individuals can have ideas of right and wrong different from those of the society of which they are part, but individuals are influenced by society and it is society that evolves (of course the source of variation driving this evolution is the differing ideas of individuals, but the 'natural selection' takes place on the societal level).All that you just described fall under moral relativism.

Transcendant Moral Authority is unchanging... if it evolves with society, it isn't transcendant... kinda the point...

I think that the areas in which religions agree, e.g. w.r.t. murder, theft, etc. can be seen as absolute morality, and the areas in which they disagree can be see as relative (or a conformist movement).

It's not so much what society says.. not at all... it's about what one's conscience says.But how is one's conscience formed? Through the mores of the society that person is raised in. If you are raised in a society that accepts, say, cannibalism as a good, then your conscience won't be offended by taking a bite of Uncle Harry. My conscience would be, mainly because cannibalism is a taboo where I came up. Even if I were in a situation where my choice was between starvation and cannibalism, while I would likely munch on Uncle Harry, I would still feel the pang of conscience telling me it's not right.

Everything is relative.
The standards that exist to moderate society and the individual are only definable when compared to something believed to be undesirable. However the thing can only be defined as such when compared to an experince already had. Therefore if there is no pre-existing experince for comparsion or if it exceeds the one presented than these standards fall through.
Okay that's confusing...oh, well I'll post now and come back to edit later.
:lol:

Moral relativism is about confronting moral constants and forcing those who hold them to rationalize their position. As a core philosophy it is rather absurdist, since abolishing all constants leaves only circular logic to fix values.

Transcendant Moral Authority is unchanging... if it evolves with society, it isn't transcendant... kinda the point...

You're confusing the evolution of ideas with the evolution of what they represent - it's like saying the laws of physics changed when Einstein proposed relativity - all that changes is our understanding. In cases where there is some absolute truth, we should expect our evolving ideas to home in on that truth.

My point was that Moral Relativism (right and wrong are meaningless) and Transcendant Moral Authority (everything is either right or wrong and these definitions are fixed) are just two extremes, and that you can disagree with both while still holding consistent views.

Moral relativism is about confronting moral constants and forcing those who hold them to rationalize their position. As a core philosophy it is rather absurdist, since abolishing all constants leaves only circular logic to fix values.

I disagree - as I explained in my first post someone could define 'right' and 'wrong' in terms of persistence. They wouldn't be relying on circular logic then.

Moral relativism is about confronting moral constants and forcing those who hold them to rationalize their position. As a core philosophy it is rather absurdist, since abolishing all constants leaves only circular logic to fix values.
No logic, circular or otherwise, can fix values.

Moral relativism (or cultural relativism, as it is more commonly incarnated), is absolute folly.

Universal morality can be approached via a number of differing theories; the best are firmly grounded in reason.

Moral relativism (or cultural relativism, as it is more commonly incarnated), is absolute folly.

Universal morality can be approached via a number of differing theories; the best are firmly grounded in reason.

Well don't leave us in the dark: share your wisdom.

Moral relativism (or cultural relativism, as it is more commonly incarnated), is absolute folly.

Universal morality can be approached via a number of differing theories; the best are firmly grounded in reason.
If you have a number of different theories and more than one of them is firmly grounded in reason (this is of course impossible, there's no morality which can be derived from reason alone) then in what sense do you have a "universal" morality?

I've just thought of another way of blurring the lines. Suppose you define something as 'good' if defining it thus would lead to it continuing to be defined good in future.

I'd better give an example: if we defined 'killing random people' as good, and hence didn't punish it, we'd expect it to happen a lot more - however, a society defining 'killing random people' as good is not persistent in the face of a society that defines it as bad (and hence acts to stop it), so in future it would be defined as bad. In contrast, if we defined it as bad it would remain bad, so we can say in some sense that 'killing random people' is bad in absolute terms.

The thing is, we probably can't do that in most circumstances, as whether something is persistent is likely to be dependent on context, and it's also possible that there is an issue without a stable solution - societies defining it as good will always coexist with those defining it as bad.

So this viewpoint regards some things as absolute and some as relative.My problem with your problem is your example. There is no reason to assume that those societies which have defined "killing random people" as good (the malay amok and eurpean beseak spring to mind) fell to societies defining it (killing random people) as bad because they defined it as good. If there were a causal link then I would have no problem with your example.

the closest general form would be that societies tend to classify as good that which benefits the society. But this is only a general tendency and not an absolute. Meme theory argues that in a conflict those societial memes (n this case defintions of good and evil) which are best suited to their society will survive, but there is no reason to assume that any particular meme (killing random people is bad) is always going to be superior in all societies. Indeed, I can imagine in a world intensely overpopulated that amokers would be extolled for their positive contribution to society.

Moral relativism is about confronting moral constants and forcing those who hold them to rationalize their position. As a core philosophy it is rather absurdist, since abolishing all constants leaves only circular logic to fix values.

I disagree - as I explained in my first post someone could define 'right' and 'wrong' in terms of persistence. They wouldn't be relying on circular logic then.

So please explain logically why you value persistence, or even existence.

Libertovania: Circular logic isn't logic. ;)

It's not so much what society says.. not at all... it's about what one's conscience says.

Well then there's another distinction - right and wrong as an individual definition or right and wrong as a societal definition? Of course individuals can have ideas of right and wrong different from those of the society of which they are part, but individuals are influenced by society and it is society that evolves (of course the source of variation driving this evolution is the differing ideas of individuals, but the 'natural selection' takes place on the societal level).All that you just described fall under moral relativism.

Transcendant Moral Authority is unchanging... if it evolves with society, it isn't transcendant... kinda the point...

Well, that being the case you would have to accept that all Christian churches have engaged in moral relativity over time, thereby - I assume - making them no longer in adherence with the correct Christian principles according to your viewpoint.

After all, according to the bible capital punishment should be on the books for adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexual behavior (Leviticus 20:13), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), loving anything more than God (Leviticusé20:2), occult practices (Exodus 22:18), pre-marital sex (Leviticus 21:9), not observing the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), and striking or slandering a parent (Exodus 21:15, 17).

So where do you draw the line?

-Z-

It's not so much what society says.. not at all... it's about what one's conscience says.

Well then there's another distinction - right and wrong as an individual definition or right and wrong as a societal definition? Of course individuals can have ideas of right and wrong different from those of the society of which they are part, but individuals are influenced by society and it is society that evolves (of course the source of variation driving this evolution is the differing ideas of individuals, but the 'natural selection' takes place on the societal level).All that you just described fall under moral relativism.

Transcendant Moral Authority is unchanging... if it evolves with society, it isn't transcendant... kinda the point...

Well, that being the case you would have to accept that all Christian churches have engaged in moral relativity over time, thereby - I assume - making them no longer in adherence with the correct Christian principles according to your viewpoint.

After all, according to the bible capital punishment should be on the books for adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexual behavior (Leviticus 20:13), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), loving anything more than God (Leviticusé20:2), occult practices (Exodus 22:18), pre-marital sex (Leviticus 21:9), not observing the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), and striking or slandering a parent (Exodus 21:15, 17).

So where do you draw the line?

-Z-umm... the principles of right/wrong are still there, only the punishment has changed.