NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think of absolute morals (ie there are definitions of "good" and "evil" as opposed to them being things which humans make up) as opposed to relative morals (in which morals can and should change)?

I subscribe to relativism.

When I say relativism, I don't mean that absolutism means that you should judge everyone in the same harsh way. I meant that in absolutism, some things are inherently evil and that evil never changes.

Definitely relativism. There are some morals that come easier than others, though, primarily due to our culture... but I'd like to think that humans do have a decent core, whether we choose to supress or ignore it is our choice.

How about morals are neither absolute nor relative? :)

Relative, this is show by different attitudes in different cultures.

Morals are subjective and depend upon the dominating culture and society. Even then, there are differences inside those societies depending on a person's own beliefs.

The problem I have with relativism is that it can lead to the devaluing of life (oh dear, here I go on the televangelista-sounding route), because you could argue that there's nothing really wrong with the Rwandan genocide because by the morals of the perpetrators, it's okay.

Certainly not absolute.

Very few things are.

The problem I have with relativism is that it can lead to the devaluing of life (oh dear, here I go on the televangelista-sounding route), because you could argue that there's nothing really wrong with the Rwandan genocide because by the morals of the perpetrators, it's okay.

Yea though I think it is relative, there are basic morals which stem all cultures, but morality is down to the individuals.

How about morals are neither absolute nor relative? :)
Yeah, you could combine the two and get absolelavutism.

I believe a bit in both views.

Yeah, you could combine the two and get absolelavutism. Only Russians could pronounce that...

My problem with relativism (no.2) is that if morals can change, then surely you can't say with any definition that killing someone is "wrong"? If someone from a warrior culture killed your entire family (and yes, I know I'm using silly analogies here), then surely they were not doing anything wrong? If they didn't know it was wrong, obviously you cannot exactly blame them... but I believe the act itself would still have an intrinsic moral evil.

Basically, anyone religious is likely to put down absolutism.

The problem I have with relativism is that it can lead to the devaluing of life (oh dear, here I go on the televangelista-sounding route), because you could argue that there's nothing really wrong with the Rwandan genocide because by the morals of the perpetrators, it's okay.

Thats also the problem i have with morals being absolute.

I don't think morals are relative, in that any old moral concept isn't equally good as any other, but there aren't absolute morals.

Thats also the problem i have with morals being absolute.

I don't think morals are relative, in that any old moral concept isn't equally good as any other, but there aren't absolute morals. Interesting. Could you explain your stance to me? Do I need to put another option in? (How?)

I'm really not sure on this one. I've recently been thinking about relativism, and my current idea is that of there being 'meta-morals' derived from the relativism itself. But it's probably full of logical holes big enough to drive a tank through, knowing me.

Yeah, you could combine the two and get absolelavutism.
Heh! No, no, no. What I meant was that there are certain acts which are contrary to what we know are best ( or less than best ) for people, the environment, etc. Those can be labelled "absolute" if you prefer. All other acts are relativistic. Make sense? :)

Mostly, morals are absolute. I'm not going to excuse and torturing, murderous regime just because it "seemed OK at the time".

I reckon that if you think any morals are absolute, you're an absolutist. Maybe that's just me. Like some things I would hold to be wrong regardless of "culture"... the concept behind human rights is absolutist, for instance.

Mostly, morals are absolute. I'm not going to excuse and torturing, murderous regime just because it "seemed OK at the time".

I think you're misinterpreting... but then, I might be. Anyway. Is not a relative moral where, to use your example, a murderous torturing regime, to you, is a disgusting thing. But, say the culture was very Darwinian, where murder would simply be ensuring survival of the fittest and torture of the weak wouldn't be unexceptional, then they would find their regime not to be disgusting, but a comparative pillar of virtue.

How about morals are neither absolute nor relative? :)

For once I agree with the stately one.

Morals are part of the human condition, they are linked to us being what we are, as human beings, as reflexive intelligent, self aware entities. Thus they are, for us, consistent across time and culture, in their basics.

However this does not mean that there is some set of actions that are universally good. There is only a set of actions that is good if you are a human. For other intelligent species, these actions may be different.

So: Not absolute, but not relative in the sense meant here. And yes I do understand the questiuon, so I needed a "I'll let Myrth decide" option.

Interesting. Could you explain your stance to me? Do I need to put another option in? (How?)

Well I've been trying to figure it out too :)

I personnally think that it is most likely that morality is an artificial construct that we use to help us bring order to the world.

So we invent it: its not absolute because different morality would suit different individuals differently.

But that doesn't mean that every system of morality is equally valuable. You need a criteria to judge them against. (This is very Nietzschian)

As for what that criteria is, exactly, I'm not quite sure.

I would imagine that a good moral system is life enhancing and not life debilitating. So a good moral system should have rules that are "good" for fairly obvious reasons, and not good "because they're good".

Something like that. Morality is artificial but some is more "life enhancing" than some other.

I believe in an objecitve idea of morality, but I don't believe it's necessarily absolute. But I believe for sure that they are NOT relative.

Morals are absolutely relative. How about that? :p Ethics, however, are absolute within their society (until they're changed, lol). Morals are about personal (and often religious) belief but ethics are determined by the society you live in and they lack the relativism that individuals are capable of. For example, ethically it's always wrong for one person to kill another for pissing you off or whatever. Morally, however, it may be okay to kill someone if they're (for example) a heretic.

I'm pretty sure that the problem most people encounter when discussing morals is that they haven't been taught the difference between morals and ethics. It's VERY common in the U.S., though perhaps not as common elsewhere. Ethics generally go along with legality and morals go along with personal belief/religion.

Sadly, Americans are confusing the two more and more and so more and more there is a feeling that it's okay to legislate morality rather than legislating pure ethics.

Of course, that isn't to say that ethics aren't just as fuzzy and muddled a subject as morality. There are constant debates about both. The core difference is Ethics = Logic. Morality = Emotion/Belief.

For once I agree with the stately one.
ROFLMAO!!! "Stately one." OMG! LOL!

There are a few things that are universally evil (rape, genocide) and a few things that are universally good (love, mercy,) but most morals are more just social customs than they are absolutes. However, if you notice, many of these social taboos and customs are similar and getting at the same thing; so there ARE universal morals, but they are approached different ways by different cultures.

As far as I can tell, morals are relative. One person says it's immoral, another says it's not - relativism. To me, morality is a list of things that religion typically has handed us to say "these are wrong, don't do them". Considering that there are literally 1000s of religions in the world, and that each of those lists is widely varied, that's pretty relative. It seems to me that people follow morals because they feel that if they don't, they will be punished in the afterlife. People are usually pretty skeptical about religion, therefore they do not follow morals quite so often as they typically profess - making morals even more relative, since people who profess that something is immoral typically also do that very same thing, when no one is looking.

On the other hand we have Ethics...
Ethics are where you consider how the action will affect others (be they human or otherwise). If you consider how the "victim" will react to your action, then you realize that it may or may not be ethical. People generally do not want to die, do not want to be raped, do not want their belongings stolen. Even in cultures where these are common, acceptable behaviours so long as they are used against other cultures, these still hold true. The victim doesn't want it to happen. Ethics are absolute.

Am I moral? By lots of people's definitions, no. By my own religion's definition, yes.
Am I ethical? Yes, quite completely. I am vegan (ethical treatment of animals), considerate of others (though I make mistakes), egalitarian (I'd really like to see equal treatment of all people), and I follow the law - but not because I fear punishment - because I recognize that the law is set up to enforce ethical behaviour (in most cases) and I am angered when the laws reflect morality, not ethics.

There are a few things that are universally evil (rape, genocide) and a few things that are universally good (love, mercy,) but most morals are more just social customs than they are absolutes. However, if you notice, many of these social taboos and customs are similar and getting at the same thing; so there ARE universal morals, but they are approached different ways by different cultures.
^Pretty much sums up my point

For all the killing is wrong people, I've always felt that if you agree with the main proposition of moral relativity "No ones morals are better or worse than anyone elses" the you can't help but follow the logical conclusion that forcing your morals on others is wrong.
By killing someone you would be forcing your belief over others (It is right to kill over it is right not to be killed) and therefore would be considered wrong if viewed under relativism. There you go. An absolute rule in relativism.

But, say the culture was very Darwinian, where murder would simply be ensuring survival of the fittest and torture of the weak wouldn't be unexceptional, then they would find their regime not to be disgusting, but a comparative pillar of virtue.
I say no. Some cultures are better IMO than others. For example, those which respect the right to security and self-ownership are IMO superior to those who regard FMG as a noble tradition.

I have to place my flag in the 'relative' camp.

There is no set of rules that applies absolutely, in any situation... and to believe there is, is to start down a slippery slope of trying to FORCE everything to fit one code.

Someone earlier said that 'rape' was one of the obvious candidates for a univerally immoral action... and yet, the Jews in Canaan raped the natives, and there is a whole holy book about the god that sanctioned such actions.

Personally, I believe that rape is immoral - but different times and different places have clearly disagreed.

Just one example... but part of a clear indication that morals are relative to time, place, culture, etc.