NationStates Jolt Archive

Moral relativism: good or bad?

I say bad! Any takers?

If I understand it correctly, I say it's inevitable.
However, I probably have no idea what it really is.

I second inevitable.

I am very accepting of different viewpoints, but I think Moral Relativism is intellectual sloth.

Ideas *ARE* meant to be questioned!

Dangerously amoral.

Within limits moral relativism surely has to be good.
There does have to be some sort of defined space within which these values can be established, for them to be called moral at all. This space has to be absolute if a meaningful debate about ethics and morality can occur.
But which subdomain of this space any given group takes to be morally guiding is surely dependant upon the history and culture of that group.

OK, Christians, Muslims and all other members of groups that know the truth. shoot me down.

It is philisophicaly foolish. A is never equal to anything other than A.
Thus truth must be absolute.

Within limits moral relativism surely has to be good.
There does have to be some sort of defined space within which these values can be established, for them to be called moral at all. This space has to be absolute if a meaningful debate about ethics and morality can occur.
But which subdomain of this space any given group takes to be morally guiding is surely dependant upon the history and culture of that group.

OK, Christians, Muslims and all other members of groups that know the truth. shoot me down.
Wow.
My head just imploded.

Okay, I think I have no idea what moral relativism really is.
Any websites that might explain it?

it depends on the importance of the issue at hand.

there are things to stick up for... and others to not give a crap about. hehe

Is moral relativism the belief that morality is relative to the individual/group?

I am very accepting of different viewpoints, but I think Moral Relativism is intellectual sloth.

Ideas *ARE* meant to be questioned!

I'd argue the exact opposite: Moral Absolutism is intellectual sloth. Moral relativism is being willing to challenge/change a moral stance based on surroundings or prevailing beliefs whereas absolutism is an inflexible and unquestioning adherence to the way, the light, the whatever.

There's a middle ground called moral universalism, which I believe in and is basically what franga said.

Moral relativism: good or bad?

I say bad! Any takers?

Could you provide some kind of definition of moral relativism, so there are no misunderstandings, please?

Moral relativism.


ICK

Lower Dongville feels strongly that moral relativism is, by its very definition, not amoral, but rather, can be the only true universal morality in a world of highly different and unique individuals.

OK, Christians, Muslims and all other members of groups that know the truth. shoot me down.

You want the truth? You want the truth??

You can't HANDLE the truth!

Moral relativism: good or bad?

I say bad! Any takers?

ROFLMAO!! That was pretty damn hilarious. :)

Is moral relativism the belief that morality is relative to the individual/group?

Moral relativism, to put in a very simplified way is to state that there is no absolute good or bad. What is good depends upon the local rules and codes of behaviour. If your society accepted the sacrifice of the first born male son to appease the gods of famine and war, then the ritual killing of these infants would be a good act, not a bad one.

Clear?

A more detailed explanation (http://www.moral-relativism.com/)

You want the truth? You want the truth??

You can't HANDLE the truth!

I sit three hundred yards from four thousand Cubans trained to kill me.

I sit three hundred yards from four thousand Cubans trained to kill me.

Lucky bastard! Save some for me! :D

You want the truth? You want the truth??

You can't HANDLE the truth!

*Quickly writes truth exception handler*

Fire away, I can take it.

Of course morality is relative. Some believe homosexuality and abortion to be immoral while others see it as moral. Any system of ideals, politics or religion is undoubtedly relative. They are all forms of human perception.

Moral relativism: good or bad?

I say bad! Any takers?
Might make discussing it easier if you define it.

EDIT: nevermind. I don't really understand the concept, so I'll just observe.

Of course morality is relative. Some believe homosexuality and abortion to be immoral while others see it as moral. Any system of ideals, politics or religion is undoubtedly relative. They are all forms of human perception.

But some people are baby-eating tea-swilling surrender monkeys, and some people are stupid, ignorant redneck hicks weary of innovation and progress.

I'm all for moral relavitism, so long as I still gets to tell the sinnerers what they ought and oughten't do and tell the buggerers who they ought and oughten't marry.

I'd argue the exact opposite: Moral Absolutism is intellectual sloth. Moral relativism is being willing to challenge/change a moral stance based on surroundings or prevailing beliefs whereas absolutism is an inflexible and unquestioning adherence to the way, the light, the whatever.

I would say the BOTH Moral Relativism and Moral Absolutism are intellectual sloth :D.

The first concludes that because many moral issues seem to be heavily contingent on perspective that all of them are. The problem is that this is just an argument from lack of imagination. Just because you can't think of a true moral absolute easily doesn't mean none exist.

The second is lazy for pretty much the reasons you gave.

A less lazy approach is to admit that cleary sometimes moral judgments are relative, but there may also exist moral absolutes. Of course how you solidly conclude what are moral absolutes is far from clear.

I would say the BOTH Moral Relativism and Moral Absolutism are intellectual sloth :D.

The first concludes that because many moral issues seem to be heavily contingent on perspective that all of them are. The problem is that this is just an argument from lack of imagination. Just because you can't think of a true moral absolute easily doesn't mean none exist.

The second is lazy for pretty much the reasons you gave.

A less lazy approach is to admit that cleary sometimes moral judgments are relative, but there may also exist moral absolutes. Of course how you solidly conclude what are moral absolutes is far from clear.

Name one moral absolute.

Everything we accept or claim as an "absolute" is simply grounded in consensus. All morality is relative. Moral relativism is not about sitting on a slip and slide and moving where the wind blows. It's about recognizing that all moral codes are more or less arbitrary. How you act with this realization is a separate matter. You don't get "the Code" etched in stone. Whether you discard all codes or figure out your own is up to you. There's no sloth there.

Name one moral absolute.

No fair! I said finding moral absolutes was the hard part! But my inability to find one doesn't mean they don't exist. Assuming that since you can't find one they don't exist is a logical fallacy - the argument from lack of imagination. Their existence is a logical possiblity, and one that most relativists dismiss for the wrong reasons.

I might be true that morals are all relative, but i don't think it's obviously so.

In light of that, the rational thing to do is to live your life on the assumption that moral absolutes may in fact exist. At least, that's my perspective. :cool:

Once again, thank GOD I am here to explain this to y'all:

Right and wrong have a very simple definition. There can be no question about this...

Right = moves you toward your goal. Wrong = does not move you toward your goal.

What your goal is is irrelevant. It may be a stupid goal or a smart goal, but right and wrong are independent of the nature of your goal.

So if your goal is to get fat, than eating lotsa icecream is right, and exercising and fasting is wrong. Etc.

Now, morals are just a set of rights and wrongs, so there is no moral relativism or absoluteness, but rather a conjunction of them both. There's an absolute definition of morality within any system, but there are an infinite number of possible (relative) systems dependent on your set of goals, and they are free to change as your intentions do.

As my goal is to be arrogant, we can all realize I am right.

Once again, thank GOD I am here to explain this to y'all:

Right and wrong have a very simple definition. There can be no question about this...

Right = moves you toward your goal. Wrong = does not move you toward your goal.

What your goal is is irrelevant. It may be a stupid goal or a smart goal, but right and wrong are independent of the nature of your goal.

So if your goal is to get fat, than eating lotsa icecream is right, and exercising and fasting is wrong. Etc.

Now, morals are just a set of rights and wrongs, so there is no moral relativism or absoluteness, but rather a conjunction of them both. There's an absolute definition of morality within any system, but there are an infinite number of possible (relative) systems dependent on your set of goals, and they are free to change as your intentions do.

As my goal is to be arrogant, we can all realize I am right.

ROFL

Whether or not moral absolutes do, in fact, exist is not important. Whether or not we should seek to establish them is the more important question.

Thus I'll say that moral relativism is an excuse for evil and undermining the progress of mankind.

Clear enough?

Name one moral absolute.

All cultures that have every existed on planet earth agree:

Women look fat in yellow.

Once again, thank GOD I am here to explain this to y'all:

Right and wrong have a very simple definition. There can be no question about this...

Right = moves you toward your goal. Wrong = does not move you toward your goal.

What your goal is is irrelevant. It may be a stupid goal or a smart goal, but right and wrong are independent of the nature of your goal.

So if your goal is to get fat, than eating lotsa icecream is right, and exercising and fasting is wrong. Etc.

Now, morals are just a set of rights and wrongs, so there is no moral relativism or absoluteness, but rather a conjunction of them both. There's an absolute definition of morality within any system, but there are an infinite number of possible (relative) systems dependent on your set of goals, and they are free to change as your intentions do.

As my goal is to be arrogant, we can all realize I am right.

Okay, smart guy. So why is it that everybody always tells me that I "did the right thing" when, according to your definitions, I very obviously have just done the wrong thing?

Me: "Hey, I just gave all my money to Jerry's Kids!"
Buddy: "You did the right thing."
Bzzzzt! The right answer was "bought a new Z4."

Me: "My girlfriend just cheated on me with my best buddy and we broke up. But I said we could still be friends."
Buddy: "Hey, you did the right thing."
Bzzzt! The right answer was "they will never find the bodies."

Huh?

The only thing that is absolute is existence. Now some say truth and reality are absolutes, too, but I say only in that they exist, same as everything else. It is the property of their existence that is absolute, not the value trait of 'goodness' or 'badness'. Good and bad are subjective value judgements. Since we are forever limited to viewing the world from a subjective viewpoint, we can never know truth and reality any other way than relatively. Any existence they have apart from human consciousness is abstract.

Whether or not moral absolutes do, in fact, exist is not important. Whether or not we should seek to establish them is the more important question.

Thus I'll say that moral relativism is an excuse for evil and undermining the progress of mankind.

Clear enough?

Moral values *have to* change from time to time and they, inevitable *are* different from place to place.
It´s evolution, if something don´t change, it doesn´t get better. I think you people confuse it with amoralism, really it isn´t, you are not trashing away everything (being an atheist does not mean you are pro-rape), it just means taking all that concept to a new level.
Read nietzsche, he explain this much better then I do.

I would have to say that Isaiah Berlin's comments on determinism apply equally well to relativism.

There is no way to "disprove" it.... Nevertheless, for all that some people love to argue for it, few if any of them seem to speak a language in real life that allows it. In other words, no one behaves like a relativist (or a determinist). People behave as if they believe some things are simply "right" and others are "wrong," and everyone should be able to understand why. Moreover, look at the people who claim that what may be unjustifiable in culture A is perfectly natural in culture B, and that culture A's moral condemnation is therefore incorrect because they simply do not understand culture B. These are the very same people who then proceed to EXPLAIN to us why certain acts hold different moral value in culture B than in culture A!! But if the moral rationale can be explained, then the "relativist" who explains it presumes an objective rational standpoint from which such explanations makes sense.

Very few relativists admit that the morality of a culture "just is" and cannot be explained to an outsider. While this position is more philosophically consistent, it conflicts with the empirical fact that outside visitors do, apparently, come to understand (or at least sympathize with) a new culture in which they reside.

Moral relativism: good or bad?

I say bad! Any takers?
Wow, you seem dedicated, as you even wrote a UN proposal about it...

Lower Dongville feels strongly that moral relativism is, by its very definition, not amoral, but rather, can be the only true universal morality in a world of highly different and unique individuals.
Lower Dongville should be taken outside and shot.

I would have to say that Isaiah Berlin's comments on determinism apply equally well to relativism.

There is no way to "disprove" it.... Nevertheless, for all that some people love to argue for it, few if any of them seem to speak a language in real life that allows it. In other words, no one behaves like a relativist (or a determinist). People behave as if they believe some things are simply "right" and others are "wrong," and everyone should be able to understand why. Moreover, look at the people who claim that what may be unjustifiable in culture A is perfectly natural in culture B, and that culture A's moral condemnation is therefore incorrect because they simply do not understand culture B. These are the very same people who then proceed to EXPLAIN to us why certain acts hold different moral value in culture B than in culture A!! But if the moral rationale can be explained, then the "relativist" who explains it presumes an objective rational standpoint from which such explanations makes sense.

Very few relativists admit that the morality of a culture "just is" and cannot be explained to an outsider. While this position is more philosophically consistent, it conflicts with the empirical fact that outside visitors do, apparently, come to understand (or at least sympathize with) a new culture in which they reside.

I have to agree 100% here. Great explanation.

EDIT: I've been giving this some thought, and basically what you're arguing is that there has to be some some absolute underlying logic to morality or else we couldn't all recognize it. Of course this probably wouldn't take the form of absolute moral principles like "thou shalt not kill", but instead it would be a set of rules for how you construct a moral framework.

At least, that's how this works out in my head.

I would have to say that Isaiah Berlin's comments on determinism apply equally well to relativism.

Well, let's examine what he said then.

There is no way to "disprove" it.... Nevertheless, for all that some people love to argue for it, few if any of them seem to speak a language in real life that allows it. In other words, no one behaves like a relativist (or a determinist). People behave as if they believe some things are simply "right" and others are "wrong," and everyone should be able to understand why.

True so far, we do behave according to our personal codes of behaviour. No surprises there.

Moreover, look at the people who claim that what may be unjustifiable in culture A is perfectly natural in culture B, and that culture A's moral condemnation is therefore incorrect because they simply do not understand culture B.

A good characterisation of moral relativism

These are the very same people who then proceed to EXPLAIN to us why certain acts hold different moral value in culture B than in culture A!!

Do they. I have never actually encountered anyone, moral relativist or not, who tried to explain why certain acts had different moral values attached to them? They normally say things like "for this culture schwangdongling is seen as a normal and healthy activity, whereas in ours it is taboo" This is not an explanation, it is a description. It does not base the acceptance of the activity on some metavalue set. It simply reports the state of affairs.

But if the moral rationale can be explained, then the "relativist" who explains it presumes an objective rational standpoint from which such explanations makes sense.

Descriptions are not explanations so no objective standpoint, or metavalues are required. This last part if Isaiah's argument fails given the falseness of his second premiss.

Very few relativists admit that the morality of a culture "just is" and cannot be explained to an outsider. While this position is more philosophically consistent, it conflicts with the empirical fact that outside visitors do, apparently, come to understand (or at least sympathize with) a new culture in which they reside.
The ability to adapt to a different set of moral values, does not require any ability whatsoever to explain them. There is no empirical conflict between the adoption of local values by immigrants, and the inexplicability of local morals to outsiders. Understanding is not a prerequisite for behaviour.

"Thou shalt", and "thou shalt not" are the only two moral absolutes I can think of. That you should do some things and that you shouldn't do others; all specifics are left up to the people/culture in question.

Unless you take the more hardcore forms of Taoism into account; in which case its just "Thou shalt not...anything" ;)

I'm a moral relativist, if you mean it in the strictest definition:

Moral Relativism - What's It All About?
Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice.

Morality does change with time, technology and from culture to culture.
My sense of morality would not be relevant at all to a starving child in Africa, who may steal whatever he needs to survive.
Perhaps I'm just depraved though. ;)

I have to agree 100% here. Great explanation.

EDIT: I've been giving this some thought, and basically what you're arguing is that there has to be some some absolute underlying logic to morality or else we couldn't all recognize it. Of course this probably wouldn't take the form of absolute moral principles like "thou shalt not kill", but instead it would be a set of rules for how you construct a moral framework.

More or less, although I suspect "absolute" is too strong a word.

Part of the problem arises from the fact that people (at least us Westerners) are so used to dealing with strict dichotomies: there are "absolute" moral truths [B]or all moral truth is "relative."

The matter seems to stand somewhere in between. The relativist "perspective" is a good one when what it says is "be careful about universalizing your own understanding of moral validity." It warns us to take context into account, to try to "step into the other's shoes."

What happens when we do that is we start to understand why certain things make a different kind of sense from a different point of view. But the fact that this is even possible -- the fact that we can "make sense" of different traditions and moral systems, suggests that there is something that could be called "universal" human reason. What this is or what it looks like in an "abstract" sense is hard to say; abstraction itself is a cultural habit, and so it seems suspicious to claim that "universal" human reason happens to "look a lot like" the way reason is conceived by some but not all cultures.

I would say that universal human reason occurs somewhere in the intersection between our sense of empathy, our sense of justice, and our sense of "utility" (in a very broad sense). I step away from the word "absolute" because this implies that reason produces unique, "proveable" results. It implies that anyone who starts with A and B as premises should go through C and D to conclusion E. But I find this doubtful. I think the wisdom of multiculturalism is to understand that from A and B can come a variety of results, and if we think carefully about them one does not necessarily make more "sense" than another.

It is that notion of "sense" that I want to get at and claim for a universal. Thus, I tend to talk about "reasonable" rather than "rational" people, since the latter term carries too many absolutist connotations.

The important thing is that this sort of multiculturalism values respect for other cultures, but also retains a critical edge: we retain the right to say, "that doesn't make sense." We just have to be very careful about it.

Do they. I have never actually encountered anyone, moral relativist or not, who tried to explain why certain acts had different moral values attached to them? They normally say things like "for this culture schwangdongling is seen as a normal and healthy activity, whereas in ours it is taboo" This is not an explanation, it is a description.

You need to try reading some comparative anthropology. If an anthropologist stopped his study there, he would have his Ph.D. revoked. Moreover, every serious relativist I have read has ventured to explain why people behave differently. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, they thought it was a matter of climate. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, they have claimed that it is because certain seemingly "odd" practices are "beneficial" to them, when seen in the right light. The claim that culture "just is as it is" for no reason is exceedingly rare... and it is the only perspective that disallows cultural criticism.

This last part if Isaiah's argument fails given the falseness of his second premiss.

Just to make sure there is no understanding, this is not Berlin's argument. He argued that no one really believes in determinism, and if they did they would behave very strangely. He was not especially concerned with relativism. This is my argument.

The ability to adapt to a different set of moral values, does not require any ability whatsoever to explain them.

No, it doesn't... but "adaptation" means simply "this is how they do things here, so I'll do them... even though they don't make sense." But the fact of the matter is that when someone is immersed in another culture, they begin to understand it (or at least think they do), and when they come home they are happy to tell everyone they meet why things are so different there. And when people object that something seems strange, you will almost always hear the reply, "Well, you have to understand..."

These conversations could not occur (or would not make any sense) without the operation of some form of universal human reason.

Understanding is not a prerequisite for behaviour.

No. Which is why the fact that understanding occurs anyway is so very telling.

To be clear, Alien Born:

A consistent relativist such as yourself, confronted with seemingly bizarre behavior in another culture, would never bother to ask the question "why?"

Because you cannot believe there is an answer that you, as an outsider, could possibly understand.

Moral relativism: good or bad?

I say bad! Any takers?

Bad. The problem is, outside of there being a Being that has the capacity to objectively define all of reality, everything, including morality is relative or essentially meaningless or at least having no more meaning than whatever any one single individual believes.

Moral Relativism - What's It All About?
Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice.
I don't entirely understand this definition, and it might just be semantics. A culture sets up rules, mores and laws that, in part, dictate how people will behave. So if good or bad (ethical) behaviour is "culturally based" that suggests, to me, that they are conforming (or not conforming) --not making individual choices, but cultural-based ones.

I don't entirely understand this definition, and it might just be semantics. A culture sets up rules, mores and laws that, in part, dictate how people will behave. So if good or bad (ethical) behaviour is "culturally based" that suggests, to me, that they are conforming (or not conforming) --not making individual choices, but cultural-based ones.
Pretty much. A DEA agent may feel like a hero in America, but he'd be looked at as an asshole in Amsterdam.
A Christian may take offense when I say "Fuck Me Running Jesus!" when stubbing my toe. A Taliban leader may want to kill me since I have a goatee, and not a full beard (heresy!).

So much of our "morality" comes from what we're taught to believe. It's not written in stone (unless you believe the Moses story).
I'm being a smartass here, but I believe it's true that most "values" we hold dear are nothing but byproducts of our upbringing, choice of religion and political coersion.

To be clear, Alien Born:

A consistent relativist such as yourself, confronted with seemingly bizarre behavior in another culture, would never bother to ask the question "why?"

Because you cannot believe there is an answer that you, as an outsider, could possibly understand.

I am going to reply to this first, as it is much quicker.

Of course I would ask why. That is simply part of being an inquisitve human. What I doubt is that I would get an answer to the question that had any meaning for me. There is however the possibility that, with the explanation given, I can construct an analogy between the behaviour with behaviour I do understand. I, of course, would have no way of knowing if this analogy was valid, but it would help me "understand" the behaviour.
There are some pan cultural concepts that can help in the construction od such analogies. Things like superstitious ritual. But unless you actually absorb the culture by living with it, these analogies will always remain dubious.

I am not an anthropologist, by the way, so I hope I am not being to thick headed.

Now for the longer and harder part.

You need to try reading some comparative anthropology. If an anthropologist stopped his study there, he would have his Ph.D. revoked.

As I am only a humble philosophy master student, please revoke away. Yes I do need to read some comparative anthropology, it would be very good for me. Any recommendations for the non anthropologist?

Moreover, every serious relativist I have read has ventured to explain why people behave differently. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, they thought it was a matter of climate. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, they have claimed that it is because certain seemingly "odd" practices are "beneficial" to them, when seen in the right light. The claim that culture "just is as it is" for no reason is exceedingly rare... and it is the only perspective that disallows cultural criticism. [

It may be that anthropology looks at moral relativism from the point of view of trying to explain why people behave differently, philosophers from the time were busy showing that people were all basically the same. (Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Salisbury, Leibniz, Spinoza etc.) These then set about trying to justify moral variations by reference to metavalues etc. Those that followed this line have since been shown to have not achieved their goal. This is why we still debate this issue.
Cultural criticism is not the issue here. We can be moral relativists and still think that our moral values are better than those of the other cultures. All that is required is that we allow the possibility that the members of the other cultures think that their values are better than ours. We do not have to believe them, they do not have to believe us. What is required for this to work is that our moral values include the value of respecting others as people.


this is not Berlin's argument *snip* This is my argument.

Yes, true, you did say that to start with.

The ability to adapt to a different set of moral values, does not require any ability whatsoever to explain them.

No, it doesn't... but "adaptation" means simply "this is how they do things here, so I'll do them... even though they don't make sense." But the fact of the matter is that when someone is immersed in another culture, they begin to understand it (or at least think they do), and when they come home they are happy to tell everyone they meet why things are so different there. And when people object that something seems strange, you will almost always hear the reply, "Well, you have to understand..."

I was speaking from personal experience, not good methodology I know, but it is what I have available. Everyone, everywhere does things that do not make sense. It is just that they never stop to question their activities as they are part of their normal life. You live alone and you cook a meal. You transfer it from the pan to the plate. Why? This makes no sense if you ask about it. It is just that we grew up in our cultures with things happening that were "normal" so they were not questioned. When you first move to another culture, nothing makes sense. Some things are explicable in terms of climate etc. (Flat roofs in mxico, steep roofs in Switzerland) Some things are explicable in terms of history, (The animosity, real or otherwise, between the English and the Scottish) but others are simply not explicable. They are just "the way things are done here".
If you only stay a few weeks or months, then you do not have time to adapt, but a few years, and you stop noticing the oddities, they are no long strange, they are the way it is done. When this occurs you have adapted to a new culture, and this will include the moral values of that culture. Returning to your old culture becomes extremely disorienting. You know the way things are done there, but you don't. They are strange, and what you had taken for granted becomes the subject of doubt.
The way that words are used in everyday speech is not a good argument. "Well you have to understand. . ." in my experience is normally followed by something that is incomprehensible.

These conversations could not occur (or would not make any sense) without the operation of some form of universal human reason.

I am not following you here. Which conversations?
I will note that universal rationality is not in question here. There is no necessary link for me between reason and morality. (I follow Hume on this, not Kant)

No. Which is why the fact that understanding occurs anyway is so very telling.

My positiuon is that understanding does not happen. It does not exist even in the locals. Acceptance, and the suspension of curiosity occur, but no understanding.

Moral relativism: good or bad?

I say bad! Any takers?
lol, anybody see the irony in attempting to place objective moral value on moral relativism?

it's neither good nor bad, it's simply right. morality is a construct of the human mind, it is not empirically verifiable or objectively solid, so it is a relative matter. because morality is relative, you cannot judge anything (including moral relativism) to be objectively good or bad.

lol, anybody see the irony in attempting to place objective moral value on moral relativism?

it's neither good nor bad, it's simply right. morality is a construct of the human mind, it is not empirically verifiable or objectively solid, so it is a relative matter. because morality is relative, you cannot judge anything (including moral relativism) to be objectively good or bad.

If you are a moral realist, then you can certainly say moral relativism is bad. Likewise, if you are a relativist, you can say that such relativism is good. Where is the irony?
Judging it to be bad if you are a relativist is simply inconsistant, wheras judging it to be good if you are a realist would depend upon how this correlated to the moral reality (and that gets really twisted if you try and follow it through.)

Of course I would ask why. That is simply part of being an inquisitve human. What I doubt is that I would get an answer to the question that had any meaning for me. There is however the possibility that, with the explanation given, I can construct an analogy between the behaviour with behaviour I do understand. I, of course, would have no way of knowing if this analogy was valid, but it would help me "understand" the behaviour.

That is a description of "understanding" in general. Nothing about your description is unique to understanding across cultures. You always work with what you have. You always draw analogies to take in new information. You can never be sure that you have gotten it all right.

Of course, in the cross-cultural experience you generally have less "to start with." But the fact that some knowledge take longer to learn does not make it any less knowable. Where would that leave advanced mathematics? Physics? Philosophy, for that matter?

I am not an anthropologist, by the way, so I hope I am not being to thick headed.

I am not an anthropologist, either. However, when I am talking about a subject that is the special concern of a particular discipline, I try to pay attention to what that discipline has to say about it. And I know that anthropologists who spend their lives studying other cultures seem to think that it is possible for people of different backgrounds to understand one another.

I'm not a fan of relativism. I like to think that moral change is more than simple change, it is progress. I don't necessarily believe that our current senses of morality are correct now, but I would like to believe that we are moving towards something better.

As far as moral absolutes go, how about "murder is wrong", does that work? I can't think of any way murder could be considered morally right. If it were morally right, it couldn't be murder. Though I suppose that may make the statement analytic. Damn. What about the Golden Rule? Do/do not do unto others...

Another problem I have with relativism is the fact that since the ideas of "culture" and "society" are so vaporous the only two non-arbitrary moral spheres it can use are individual moral spheres or one universal moral sphere (I'd explain further but I have to run soon). It seems that relativism has to collapse into either universalism or subjectivism. I don't really like subjectivism very much. Universalism is cool though.

That is a description of "understanding" in general. Nothing about your description is unique to understanding across cultures. You always work with what you have. You always draw analogies to take in new information. You can never be sure that you have gotten it all right.

In many cases, analogy is the way in which we acquire an understanding of new information. But I differ from you in that I do not think that this is always the case. Setting aside for now, the problem of how we acquire our first piece of understanding, I would argue that there are some thoughts and ideas that are so radically different to anything else that you know, that analogy does not help. The particular idea I have in mind is quantum physics.
This is however just my opinion, and I can not give evidence for the opinion.


Of course, in the cross-cultural experience you generally have less "to start with." But the fact that some knowledge take longer to learn does not make it any less knowable. Where would that leave advanced mathematics? Physics? Philosophy, for that matter?

We agree here, I think.


I am not an anthropologist, either. However, when I am talking about a subject that is the special concern of a particular discipline, I try to pay attention to what that discipline has to say about it. And I know that anthropologists who spend their lives studying other cultures seem to think that it is possible for people of different backgrounds to understand one another.

It does appear that you are better versed in anthropology than I am.
I am not sure of one small point here though. It is whether anthropologists think that it is possible for people from different cultures to understand one another, or whether it is possible for people from different cultures to understand each other's culture.

The first, I certainly think is possible, There will be many cultural misunderstandings, but these are possible to negotiate through given patience and tolerance. The latter I have my doubts about given that I do not think that we really "understand" our own culture.

A good thing.

Moral relativism: good or bad?

I say bad! Any takers?
I say it depends.

It may be that anthropology looks at moral relativism from the point of view of trying to explain why people behave differently, philosophers from the time were busy showing that people were all basically the same.

I never said people are all basically the same. I said that with sufficient effort people are capable of understanding one another, which is a different matter entirely. And ultimately, the entire discussion of relativism comes down to a discussion of "why" people behave differently. The moral relativist merely answers: "you cannot know." But if you cannot know why, you have no basis from which to make meaningful criticism.

These then set about trying to justify moral variations by reference to metavalues etc. Those that followed this line have since been shown to have not achieved their goal.

Philosophers may make reference to metavalues. Have I? No. If anything, I make a claim for "meta-reason." I contend that every human language can, in principle, be translated into any other. Every human way of understanding the world can be described so that people with another understanding can see "why it makes sense." There is no need to refer to common values.

This is why we still debate this issue.

No, we still debate this issue because we live in a world in which multiple cultures cannot avoid interacting with one another, and we are trying to figure out how to go about it. We are in the midst of a political crisis in which we are trying to develop a notion of "human rights" that we can meaningfully defend without merely imposing a Western concept of right onto the rest of the world.

These are serious problems. And my problem with philosophers is that they do think the reason we still talk about this is because they cannot come up with a completely satisfying intellectual explanation. They divorce principle and practice.

I was a philosophy student as an undergraduate, but I turned to political theory for my graduate career because political theorists, at least in principle, admit to being partisans. We recognize that ideas are connected to actions and movements in the world, that in an unequal world support for any idea is likely to involve winners and losers and those arguing for the idea should be aware of who those people are and what are their interests.

So let me ask you, to what movement do you connect your relativism? How does it tell us to behave in the world? When can we support human rights in another culture? When should we choose "respect for the culture" over the suffering of its women? What answers does your philosophy have for these questions?

Cultural criticism is not the issue here. We can be moral relativists and still think that our moral values are better than those of the other cultures. All that is required is that we allow the possibility that the members of the other cultures think that their values are better than ours. We do not have to believe them, they do not have to believe us.

At what point in there did "criticism" occur? To critique is to advocate change. Where does your philosophy allow arguments for change? It seems hopelessly conservative.

I was speaking from personal experience, not good methodology I know, but it is what I have available. Everyone, everywhere does things that do not make sense. It is just that they never stop to question their activities as they are part of their normal life. *snip* It is just that we grew up in our cultures with things happening that were "normal" so they were not questioned.

All you are saying is that most people never question. The point at issue is whether, for those of us who do -- philosophers, political theorists, sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists -- there are answers.

You could just as well argue that because few people question why a thrown object follows a parabolic path, it cannot be explained.

The way that words are used in everyday speech is not a good argument. "Well you have to understand. . ." in my experience is normally followed by something that is incomprehensible.

Maybe... but it could just be that it is hard to understand. What I am suggesting is the fact that people say things like "well you have to understand" is indicative of the fact that they themselves understand. They do not say, "That's just how it's done there." They attempt to provide reasons. Now, it may take a REALLY long conversation to get you to understand those reasons. Whole classes are spent studying just one aspect of a foreign culture... but when students come out at the end, they feel like they understand the culture (or at least better than the did before). They can do more than merely list facts about how that culture behaves. They can tell you how those behaviors fit together in a way that makes sense.

My positiuon is that understanding does not happen. It does not exist even in the locals. Acceptance, and the suspension of curiosity occur, but no understanding.

Okay. But what about the people who do not accept? Who remain curious? Is it impossible for us to understand?

A moral relativist would say it is.

In many cases, analogy is the way in which we acquire an understanding of new information. But I differ from you in that I do not think that this is always the case.

If I seemed to say we "only" learn by analogy, I misspoke. I do not think this is the only kind of learning. But I do argue that, in general, you have to "start with what you know." When trying to understand a foreign culture, you obviously start with less, which means that it will be a very hard thing to understand. But it is, in principle, understandable.

Setting aside for now, the problem of how we acquire our first piece of understanding, I would argue that there are some thoughts and ideas that are so radically different to anything else that you know, that analogy does not help. The particular idea I have in mind is quantum physics.

Good example. Are you suggesting that no one understands quantum physics? I know some physicists who would disagree.

It is whether anthropologists think that it is possible for people from different cultures to understand one another, or whether it is possible for people from different cultures to understand each other's culture.

Both, considering that the very purpose of an anthropologist is to understand another culture.

The first, I certainly think is possible, There will be many cultural misunderstandings, but these are possible to negotiate through given patience and tolerance. The latter I have my doubts about given that I do not think that we really "understand" our own culture.

Who doesn't understand their own culture? Your random person off the street? Maybe not. But if you are trying to claim that the various fields that study culture (listed in a previous post) have acquired no knowledge, you are going to have an uphill battle.

Why bad? Because certain hypotheticals can be set up in which the moral relativist is mad to violate the beliefs he holds.

Let us keep in mind that moral relativism - both social and invidiual - claims that one can not - and must not - judge another culture or individual, because to do so would be to judge it based on your own moral principles, which can be entirely different from theirs. According to moral relativism, whatever is good for the person you are "judging" is what is right. It doesn't have to be the same thing that is right for you; just for him/her.

So, how can the moral relativist be made to look like a fool?

We can refer to the good 'ole philosophical standby: Nazi Germany and the concentration camps that Hitler instituted. Hitler considered these things good. By his moral standards, they were very good for all of humanity; according to moral relativism, this is true [for him at least] and so he cannot be judged except by the belief that he holds. What Hitler did was neither right nor wrong [because there is no true right or wrong] except by his own standards. So who cares if he kills millions of people! The Nuremburg trials would never have occured, America's entry into WWII would probably never have occured [until it was too late], blah blah blah, you get the point.

The moral relativist also refuses to judge the values of foreign cultures. Let me provide to you an example of something morally reprehensible from a different culture - and a different time, too! Back in feudal-era Japan, when a Japanese samurai had a new sword made, he had to test it; the katana had to be able to slice right through a man's torso, diagonally, in order to be effective in battle. He would test this by going to a crossroad and waiting for a passerby who was not of noble/samurai blood. He would then proceed to cut him down. If it worked in one blow, the sword was good. This was socially acceptable; it was seen as part of the Samurai's way of life, and it was simply a burden undertaken by the people [I somehow don't think there was a lot of social protest in feudal Japan]. The moral relativist says that we can make no judgements about this activity; that is "alright." Whatever occurs in Feudal Japan occurs based on their own morals. We have no right to judge.

This is, of course, ridiculous. If people are being killed, if there's a genocide, it should be stopped, no matter the culture. Human life is valuable. A moral relativist puts the value of human life beneathe the value of not offending anyone. It's a weak and cowardly philosophy that only the spineless and the "PC" adopt as a way to get out of making hard decisions. They're moral idiots.

Uh. My $.02?

I never said people are all basically the same. I said that with sufficient effort people are capable of understanding one another, which is a different matter entirely. And ultimately, the entire discussion of relativism comes down to a discussion of "why" people behave differently. The moral relativist merely answers: "you cannot know." But if you cannot know why, you have no basis from which to make meaningful criticism.

No, you did not. I said it, or placed it in the mouths of others (not your's). The moral relativist simply says that the question of "why" people behave differently has no single simple answer. That there are many different answers to this question. This prohibits a universal critique, but why would you want to think that you could make universally meaningful criticism. You can make, and many do make, locally meaningful criticism. This should be enough.

Philosophers may make reference to metavalues. Have I? No. If anything, I make a claim for "meta-reason." I contend that every human language can, in principle, be translated into any other. Every human way of understanding the world can be described so that people with another understanding can see "why it makes sense." There is no need to refer to common values.

Unfortunately we disagree here. I strongly hold that there are some concepts that are cultural and untranslateable. (I work as a translator by the way.)
In the two languages that I know well there are abundant examples. To pick one going each way. The English word "fair" is simply impossible to render in Potuguese and in any way that enables it to be distinguished from "just". In English the two concepts are related but distinct. It is possible for something to be fair but unjust, or just but unfair. Portuguese has a commonly used word, "saudade" which is untranslateable to English. I can tell you that it relates to an emotional state which is connected to the feelings of homesickness or longing or the missing of something, but I can not translate the term. I know what it means, I feel it, but I can not express it in English

The use of metavalues is to evaluate moral values. Is this a good moral value, has to be judged somehow, if you are not going to be a relativist. This can be equated with meta-reason, if you hold that morality is rational and that reason can be culturally variant (I do not in either case. Morality is not rational, and reason is universal are my positions here).


No, we still debate this issue because we live in a world in which multiple cultures cannot avoid interacting with one another, and we are trying to figure out how to go about it. We are in the midst of a political crisis in which we are trying to develop a notion of "human rights" that we can meaningfully defend without merely imposing a Western concept of right onto the rest of the world.
These are serious problems. And my problem with philosophers is that they do think the reason we still talk about this is because they cannot come up with a completely satisfying intellectual explanation. They divorce principle and practice.

The second paragraph is fair criticism, philosophers do tend to worry about the abstract and not the practical. The only defence I can give for myself and my colleagues is that here, the practical is not the realm of the philosopher, but your realm, that of the political scientist.
The debate, it appears, is carried on by different disciplines and professions for different reasons. The reasons you give apply to yourself, and your area, the reasons I gave applied to me and my area.

I was a philosophy student as an undergraduate, but I turned to political theory for my graduate career because political theorists, at least in principle, admit to being partisans. We recognize that ideas are connected to actions and movements in the world, that in an unequal world support for any idea is likely to involve winners and losers and those arguing for the idea should be aware of who those people are and what are their interests.

I would invert the connection, I would say that actions and movements are connected to ideas. The development of the idea tends to be the first step in the movement. At least historically it has been. This inversion may seem trivial but it has a great impact on your next point.

So let me ask you, to what movement do you connect your relativism? How does it tell us to behave in the world? When can we support human rights in another culture? When should we choose "respect for the culture" over the suffering of its women? What answers does your philosophy have for these questions?

I said that the inversion of the link has a great influence here, it is because the idea, in this case relativism, which you are constantly attributing to me for some reason, does not hang itself on a movement. The idea is there, and if it is found to be inspiring by some then a movement derives from it. With moral relativism, direct practical questions are not answered, as it is not a moral code. It is not even moral thinking. It is thinking about morality, which is something else entirely. When should you choose "respect for the culture" over the suffering of its women? When your particular moral code says you should. All that moral relativism has to say about this is that you should not expect everyone to agree with you, not even the suffering women if their code is different. It does say that you should check that your intervention is desired by the recipients of youre help, before intervening. Their value system may be such that they do not want to be "freed" from what you perceive as suffering only to have what they perceive as suffering "inflicted" upon them. Moral relativism says that you do not have the ability to judge what is good for another culture.



At what point in there did "criticism" occur? To critique is to advocate change. Where does your philosophy allow arguments for change? It seems hopelessly conservative.

This is really unworthy of response, but nevertheless I will try. Please recognise that you introduced the term criticism, not I. The arguments I am presenting concern the nature of morality. If you wish to suggest that this can change then fine, present a motive for this, or a justification. As far as I had understood morality is an aspect of human experience, in the way rationality is. I believe morality itself to be universal amongst humans, that is to say that we all have moral interests and concerns. Whether I beleive that there is a real moral code, or whether codes are relative, I have not actually stated at any time.

All you are saying is that most people never question. The point at issue is whether, for those of us who do -- philosophers, political theorists, sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists -- there are answers.

No. I am saying something much more fundamental than this. I am saying that while an individual remains within one culture there are aspects of that culture that are simply unquestionable. Regardless of any academic interest, or specialisation. It is not until one moves outside of the culture that the behaviour can even be seen. It is a sort of equivalent of Gödels theorem in logic. In any system there are questions that can not be asked from within that system

You could just as well argue that because few people question why a thrown object follows a parabolic path, it cannot be explained.

I would like to see an explanation. What we have is a description and a history of predictive theories. None of these explain the parabolic curve. They simply describe the behaviour, and predict future behaviour. Given enough progress in psychology, social psychology and sociology, it may be possible to describe the behaviour of a person, and predict the future behaviour of a person, but this does not explain the behaviour. The only possibility of discovering the why, is to ask. The answer may or may not make sense.



Maybe... but it could just be that it is hard to understand. What I am suggesting is the fact that people say things like "well you have to understand" is indicative of the fact that they themselves understand. They do not say, "That's just how it's done there." They attempt to provide reasons.

I disagree. Saying "well you have to understand. . ." has always been a self contradictory phrase in my experience. It is used like the infamous "It goes without saying that. . .". It denies itself. Typical phrases are things like "Well you have to understand that they see the world differently to us", or "Well you have to understand that this is not being rude for them". No understanding of the other culture at all is being expressed here. An awareness that there is a culture difference is all that is implied.

Now, it may take a REALLY long conversation to get you to understand those reasons. Whole classes are spent studying just one aspect of a foreign culture... but when students come out at the end, they feel like they understand the culture (or at least better than the did before). They can do more than merely list facts about how that culture behaves. They can tell you how those behaviors fit together in a way that makes sense.

In a way that makes sense within the culture of the students. The explanation of one culture to members of another depends upon the translation, correctly or otherwise, of cultural concepts. There is no method, short of really shifiting culture, to confirm if these translations are correct. Even if you do shift culture, then you will be unsure of the concepts in the original culture.


Okay. But what about the people who do not accept? Who remain curious? Is it impossible for us to understand?

A moral relativist would say it is.

Yes it is. It is possible for you to fit the behaviour together in a way that makes sense in your own culture, but it is impossible for you to understand the behaviour as it really is. (From a moral relativist point of view)

If I seemed to say we "only" learn by analogy, I misspoke. I do not think this is the only kind of learning. But I do argue that, in general, you have to "start with what you know." When trying to understand a foreign culture, you obviously start with less, which means that it will be a very hard thing to understand. But it is, in principle, understandable.

Both, considering that the very purpose of an anthropologist is to understand another culture.

Who doesn't understand their own culture? Your random person off the street? Maybe not. But if you are trying to claim that the various fields that study culture (listed in a previous post) have acquired no knowledge, you are going to have an uphill battle.

We have a difference here over the meaning of understandable I think. For me, understanding something , is like understanding how a computer works. I can explain it to another, without complex or specialist terms, without resorting to undefined concepts. Now, understanding of this sort, I do not think that we ever have of any culture. Including our own




Good example. Are you suggesting that no one understands quantum physics? I know some physicists who would disagree.

No, I myself think that I understand quantum physics, just that it was very hard to do so as I had no analogous patterns to work with. It appears that we agree that the acquisition of new ideas is most easily done by analogy, but if this fails then it can be done by the use of blood, sweat, tears, and pure bloody mindedness. But note, I specified the acquisition of an idea, not understanding, given the definition above.

I have to agree 100% here. Great explanation.

EDIT: I've been giving this some thought, and basically what you're arguing is that there has to be some some absolute underlying logic to morality or else we couldn't all recognize it. Of course this probably wouldn't take the form of absolute moral principles like "thou shalt not kill", but instead it would be a set of rules for how you construct a moral framework.

At least, that's how this works out in my head.

Exactly right! there has to be some kind of absolutes in morality, or else everything could conceivably be justified at one time or another. I don't think any such moral system is sound

Can i just suggest that anyone who feels that relativistic ethical systems
are unnacceptable support my proposal for a UN resolution??

*Googles moral relativism*
*rolls eyes*
*walks away*

bad topic to wake up to

all those thoughtful posts that im not alert enough to give proper attention

so since morals ARE relative to the culture we live in, how can it be good or bad? wtf did the poster mean? is he suggesting that the world should be brought into line under a common moral structure regardless of culture and history just so it can be "good"?

i refuse to believe that anyone could be thinking that way and expect anyone to take is seriously.

im choosing to believe that he is wondering about if its ok for YOU to be a moral relativist. as in "well in afghanistan it was OK to stone a woman for immodesty so i threw a rock at brittney spears" is it ok to justify acts that are outside our normal morality by saying that its OK now for some other reason? so you are against pre-marital sex right up to the time that really hot girl seduces you, then you realize that the <i cant think of anyone> are right and that its wonderful to have pre-marital sex and you are still a moral person.

we are all moral beings unto ourselves. we are all moral relativists. everyones morals are unique to themselves and their circumstances. even our most "moral" leaders have done things that make us shake our heads and yet they still consider themselves moral. this includes the pope, martin luther, ghandi, mother teresa, jerry fallwell, martin luther king jr, etc.

in my mind, the important thing is to HAVE a morality. to pick a side and stick with it. to have a moral code that you have thought through and abide by. yes it can change over time as you mature and are exposed to new ideas but not merely to justify your own bad behavior. you shouldnt be relative with your OWN morals even as you recognize that not everyone has the same moral code.

Lower Dongville should be taken outside and shot.
Is shooting people who disagree with you a moral absolute? If so, you wont mind me killing you because i believe otherwise, right?

Imho everyone believes in morale absolutes. His/her own, that is. As we arent all the same, there is the tendency to agree on the things nearly all consider wrong, like murder or rape. These could be absolutes, but it does not exclude the possibilty that other situations are ok with some people and viewed as wrong by others. Fining people for wearing low-cut trousers is obviously a moral decision for some, while others would view this infrigement of their freedom as immoral.
Thus i come to the conclusion that neither viewpoint is completely right by its own.