Moral Relativism. Your thoughts.

Is there a such thing as good and bad, or are they both relative terms? Personally, I believe that good and bad are relative, but I don't want to talk about my beliefs. I want to see if anyone can make a good case against moral relativism. So, is there good and bad? Why or why not?

a reply to: smithjustinb

It's my belief that morality is in the eye of the beholder, much like beauty. That being said, I think most of us would agree that there are certain "evils" (I use that term lightly) that just naturally turn our stomach at the thought.... Raping children, torture, murder, etc...

Then of course, we have to deal with the difference between right/good and bad/wrong. Something might be right, but also seen as bad; killing a thousand people so millions can live... This is the grey area that I don't think any of us can truly give an honest answer for. We do our best and that's all we can do.

Our current state of global affairs is in itself a pretty good argument against moral relativism.

To pillage our planet to enrich an "elite" (garbage) few--or anyone, for that matter, including ourselves--is clearly what some might call "bad".

We treat each other the same way. Also clearly "bad".

But I suppose it depends on the magnitude of the offense. The badness of global environmental suicide is much clearer than say... polyamory.

originally posted by: NthOther
Our current state of global affairs is in itself a pretty good argument against moral relativism.

To pillage our planet to enrich an "elite" (garbage) few--or anyone, for that matter, including ourselves--is clearly what some might call "bad".

Some might call it bad. But, are those that don't call it bad wrong? Is it not good for them, thereby making morals relative?

Good and bad, applied to small groups of people that don't apply the same way to other groups is the definition of relativism.

So, who's right about what's good or bad, and who's wrong?

a reply to: smithjustinb

Good and Bad are just labels. With that being said, pain still does exist, and as living beings we want to minimize pain as much as possible, therefore:

what causes pain (and does not use that pain to reduce greater pain in the future) is considered bad.
what doesn't causes pain (and does not lead to greater pain in the future) is considered good.

To put it even more simply "pain and whatever leads to pain is bad, everything else is good".

So, killing is bad. Stealing is bad. Having fun is good (unless it's fun that is harmful to self or others).

The simplest form of morality is "Love your neighbor as yourself".

Treat people with respect whether than placing them "above" or "below" you.

There is "service to self/few by enslaving all" vs "service to all by all". One is rightfully called ego demonic and the other divine.

Creating enslaving systems like the monetary system we have where the controllers of banks create money out of thin air that hurt the people working at the bottom is the extreme example of greed of material wealth and power corrupting everything around it. Feeding/enslaving Africans with almost no material possession by dumping money on corrupt leaders and then asking the collective to pay back the money when the corrupt leaders steal it. Aid programs used to push for state deregulation and privatisation so that the oligarchs can buy everything cheaply enslaving the poor even further.

In the 4.5 billion years the earth has been around, the words "moral", "good", and "bad" haven't existed until the last 500,000. So yeah, I think morality is a human construct.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
There is "service to self/few by enslaving all" vs "service to all by all". One is rightfully called ego demonic and the other divine.

This goes deeper than action.

It is emotional and mental.

Thoughts and Feelings of Lack causes people to live in greed,
wanting more, feeling like they never have enough, fear of loosing all that they have, etc...

Thoughts and Feelings of Abundance causes people to live in fulfillment,
having no problem with sharing, having a lot of appreciation, etc...

A Mind and Heart centered around "Lack" or "Abundance" creates actions of "Greediness" or "Helpfulness".

a reply to: smithjustinb

Morals can vary from person to person and culture to culture. At the end of the day, I think it comes down to intentions, if someone has ulterior motives for doing something, then it may be questionable.

I try to live based on the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

originally posted by: smithjustinb
Is there a such thing as good and bad, or are they both relative terms? Personally, I believe that good and bad are relative, but I don't want to talk about my beliefs. I want to see if anyone can make a good case against moral relativism. So, is there good and bad? Why or why not?

Here are my thoughts lifted from a discussion in August of last year
ATS Thread: The Crusades (Disturbing Essay)

Originally posted by Gazrok
The Muslims expanded for economic gain,
....
, it always comes down to money.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Remember I said "control of resources" is the motivator, not necessarily the resources themselves.
...
Only when the Church recognized the financial threat the Templars posed, did they stop it.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Neither side was "noble" or "evil" (well, it's all a matter of perspective, isn't it?.....I mean, to a Muslim, they are righteous and the evil infidels were coming!) Each side was simply looking to further their own economic situation...same as any war. Even Nazi Germany only gets the "evil" moniker due to the Holocaust (and rightfully so, genocide is pretty nasty business), but the German people saw him much differently. Had Germany won, we'd all be decrying the evil Allies (and doing so in German no doubt)....

Originally posted by Gazrok

Are you saying that the spread of Islam was for economic gain?

Absolutely.

Weather one realizes it or not,
carrying water for one of the greatest modern revisionisms
makes one neither enlightened, nor educated, nor wise.

As uncomfortable as it may be to say it: the Nazi regime went to great lengths
to try and get both the Americans and British on-their-side, before we started attacking them.



I apologize in advance if the following diagnosis is too personal.
But I think, Gazrok, the arguments put forth are either conflating,
or confusing Ethnocentrism with Moral Relativism. The are not the same.

Ethnocentrism is judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture.

wikipedia / ethnocentrism

So, yes,
Modern America prefers, openly, to vilify publicly and celebrate hero's quietly.
But the Nazis were into open Hero worship, and private vilification.

And that's all I'm going to say about that.

In fact, shame is due.
For forcing me to defend against the arguments being made,
by defending Nazi's. I didn't bring them into this discussion.
I invoke Goodwins Law, and would admonish all participants
to stay on topic, the comparison and contrast of the Crusades with Jihad.

Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures.

wikipedia.com / Moral Relativism

The Paladins of old, stood for the idea there is no such a thing as Moral Relativism,
that there is an absolute Righteousness.
Something the modern mind has a hard way of even admitting to the conversation.

By mixing Ethnocentricity with Moral Relativism,
yes,
it is easy to paint all motivations as economic motivations.

Despite any historical evidence to the contrary.

The best of them won't come for money.

- Lawrence of Arabia

The Crusaders were not motivated by resources or money,
and neither was Christ.


Mike Grouchy

Moral relativism is really just a rot on your conscience.

Think about it. If there is no objective right and wrong or good and bad, then we have no reason to try to ever be good to one another. Moral relativism strives to reduce us to that state by telling us that we shouldn't judge what is right or wrong.

You might say that murder is always wrong for you, always. However, in some cultures, murder is perfectly permissible if you are removing a stain on the family honor. That makes murder acceptable both to the people involved and the larger society. It's called honor killing and often the victims are women who are killed to preserve the honor of their families. Sometimes, they are killed because they were raped or other totally virtuous reasons like that.

For the moral relativist, you would then say that murder is always wrong for you, but murder is not wrong for these cultures, and who are you to judge? Did you catch that? With that admission, you just implicitly made murder acceptable for yourself, too. Murder is no longer always wrong for you. Murder is now permissible to you if it's an honor killing because you cannot bring yourself to censure these societies who claim that murder is justified and right.

So, congratulations. As a moral relativist, you now allow that murder is sometimes right.

We can also go through rape, child rape, theft and host of other things you would likely swear are always wrong for you and discover that they are not wrong for some other peoples on the face of the earth which thus would mean they are also not always wrong for you.

This logically leads us to the realization that moral relativism eventually leads one to actually have no real morals at all except where it is convenient for you.

a reply to: ketsuko

So, congratulations. As a moral relativist, you now allow that murder is sometimes right.

If someone murdered your entire family with a butcher knife and came for you, and you had a gun in hand, would you not shoot them in the face to save yourself and avenge your loved ones?

Murder, mercy and justice. Three different things that all look the same under the right light. The definition of subjective, and proof that morals are relative.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
Murder, mercy and justice. Three different things that all look the same under the right light. The definition of subjective, and proof that morals are relative.

Murder may look like justice, but it can never look like "mercy".

If a person is killing someone then they obviously didn't forgive them and show mercy to them. They gave them "the punishment" instead (which may seem like 'justice' from their point of view, but it still isn't Mercy).

originally posted by: arpgme

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
Murder, mercy and justice. Three different things that all look the same under the right light. The definition of subjective, and proof that morals are relative.

Murder may look like justice, but it can never look like "mercy".

If a person is killing someone then they obviously didn't forgive them and show mercy to them. They gave them "the punishment" instead (which may seem like 'justice' from their point of view, but it still isn't Mercy).

If that person had killed my entire family with a butcher knife and was fully intent on taking my life as well, then hell yes, straight up blasting them between the eyes with a .09 mm would be a mercy. No doubt about it. Better that than what I would do to them otherwise.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: ketsuko

So, congratulations. As a moral relativist, you now allow that murder is sometimes right.

If someone murdered your entire family with a butcher knife and came for you, and you had a gun in hand, would you not shoot them in the face to save yourself and avenge your loved ones?

Murder, mercy and justice. Three different things that all look the same under the right light. The definition of subjective, and proof that morals are relative.

Murder or self-defense? This is another problem with moral relativism. It temps you to blur the lines drawing false equivalences. Would you be in the position to have to shoot the person in question if they weren't attacking you with intent to murder? Of course not, therefore, if you end up killing them, you aren't committing murder.

Murder

the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

If you seek a person out to with intent to kill them, it's murder.

a reply to: ketsuko

You can't tell me that you would not hold a drunk responsible for your family or friends dying in a car accident, especially if the drunk survived. Murder is not nearly as simple as what you just described, and if you doubt me, ask anyone who has ever lost a loved one to the careless or deliberately callous actions of another. It's all perspective, and like I said, subjectivity makes morals relative. One man's mercy, is another man's sin. Murder for one, justice for another. All perspective. And all relative.

a reply to: arpgme

what causes pain (and does not use that pain to reduce greater pain in the future) is considered bad.

Like giving birth? Like exercise? Like contact sports? Like self-sacrifice? Like tattoos?

what doesn't causes pain (and does not lead to greater pain in the future) is considered good.

Like pornography? Like lying? Like cheating?

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
If that person had killed my entire family with a butcher knife and was fully intent on taking my life as well, then hell yes, straight up blasting them between the eyes with a .09 mm would be a mercy. No doubt about it. Better that than what I would do to them otherwise.

Here is a general definition of mercy taken from Google:

compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.

If someone killed your family and you decided to kill them, then that would be vengeance/justice not mercy/forgiveness.



===================

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope



Like giving birth? Like exercise? Like contact sports? Like self-sacrifice? Like tattoos?

No.

Giving birth causes pain but it also reduces pain in the future helpful children.
Not exercising reduces pain now but not in the future when you are out of shape.
Self-sacrifice reduces pain now, but not later when you have people to help you to return the favor.

Like pornography? Like lying? Like cheating?

No.

Pornography does not cause pain now, but when a person wastes their energy and is too tired (lazy) to find a partner then that could be a future pain.

Lying does not cause pain but it will when others find out and no longer trust you.

The same with cheating.

a reply to: arpgme

If someone killed your family and you decided to kill them, then that would be vengeance/justice not mercy/forgiveness.

Justice and vengeance are not the same thing. And neither are mercy and forgiveness. Shooting them would be a mercy compared to some of the more creative forms of disposal I'm sure we've heard about, any of which I might be tempted to experiment with. Particularly if they'd just gotten done slaughtering my family.

a reply to: arpgme

No.

Giving birth causes pain but it also reduces pain in the future helpful children.
Not exercising reduces pain now but not in the future when you are out of shape.
Self-sacrifice reduces pain now, but not later when you have people to help you to return the favor.

Yes.

Giving birth does not reduce pain. Every birth is different.

Not exercising does not reduce pain. Not exercising only reduces exercising.

Self-sacrifice does not reduce pain. Self-sacrifice is, by definition, self-sacrifice, every single time.

No.

Pornography does not cause pain now, but when a person wastes their energy and is too tired (lazy) to find a partner then that could be a future pain.

Lying does not cause pain but it will when others find out and no longer trust you.

The same with cheating. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes.

Pornography does not cause pain. Only other factors cause pain.

Lying does not cause pain.

The same with cheating.