Thoughts on moral relativism?
>>755004
No.
>>755011
Oh.
>>755004
Just as true and meaningless as Nihilism. It sucks but fuck my titties
>>755004
Only things which have a measurable history can have objective basis. Beyond that there are only interpretations and events.
Dude these 3 guys think slitting baby animals open is a rolicking good time I guess morality is a lie and and nothing means anything lmao
>>755030
How do conclude that. If all moral options are relative than the idea that 'it means nothing' is also relative. Your argument is in favor of no value as an objective truth, rather than being just another relative position.
>>755004
An incoherent theory which is disturbingly widespread among non-philosophers.
Self-defeating. Hard to figure out why anyone would consider it.
>>755040
Outside of religion I cannot think of a single post 1800s philosopher that held the position. Even the most the most objectivist philosophers like Bertrand Russell thought that moral choices were a societal preference rather than some big objective fact.
>>755043
How do you figure that? Objective systems of morality have always had to relay on extremely complex metaphysical arguments such as Platonic forms, teleology, or divine commands in order to justify themself. Without a solid proof for these things the default conclusion is that they cannot be said to be objective.
>>755063
>How do you figure that?
Moral-Relativism is false.
It is that simple. You cannot argue it. You cannot fight it. Done. Self-defeated. Also it sounds like you are referring to Moral-Absolutism.
>>755004
Morality is not, and cannot be, relative.
Morality depends upon a higher power to make the definitions, and enforce the outcomes. Without an objective basis, there is no morality, only opinion and force.
>>755097
You're thing about moral absolutism. Moral relativism supposes that morality is based on social, personal, or cultural circumstances
>>755080
Lets hear an argument
>>755097
If you don't automatically assume that some outside force decides all morality then moral relativism makes sense given what we can observe of human behavior.
If you do assume that all morality comes from a non-human aetherial force, then you must first prove, either logically or empirically, that such a force exists.
>>755109
No no no. You don't get it. That is the argument. That is what makes it self-defeating. That statement alone is why moral-relativism is bunk. According to Moral-Relativism that statement is true.
Arguing against it becomes semantics or circular logic.
>>755109
The universe is a system
The system produces conscious agents
The behaviors most conducive to the health of each individual agent and the nested systems they comprise is called morality
Morality as a continuum of possible behaviors/orientations of being exists and is intrinsic to the universe's structure, since we obviously live in the universe
Ergo, morals as a phenomenon is objective, even if the little details might differ
>>755124
I don't think statements about the nature of morality depend on morality itself.
>>755124
I see you're point. But you can have to add "relative to _____", because it is relative after all. You're right tho. This is just going to be amatter of semantics
Instead I think we might want to consider what moral relativism actually supposes more concretely. In traditional ethical theory, morality is a system of values. I dont think is impossible to say that these value systems can be determined by social groups or individuals.
>>755142
This depends on what you mean by objective. If you want to say that having morals is justified by evolution or social factors, sure. But I think we are talking about morality as being objective, we're trying to find out if there is a universal moral imperative against killing, where there is a right answer
>>755142
>The behaviors most conducive to the health of each individual agent and the nested systems they comprise is called morality
But precisely morality isn't universal, acts of punishment and hospitality and other human interactions and interactions with animals are considered moral or immoral across different cultures. If by objective you mean "the existence of a particular morality is a phenomenon that we can observe" then yes, but there isn't one particular morality and sometimes morality doesn't even work toward the health of the individual (enslavement doesn't help other individuals, ritual suicide doesn't help the self, just off the top of my head).
>>755161
That imperative exists in conscious beings. Killing is kind of iffy but generally people will allow for it the worst criminals, so in a way a more general moral imperative of "justice" is still upheld. Relativists think the existence of sadists disproves this. No, diseased minds are diseased, we're not going to contort our moralities to account for their pathologies
>>755162
All I'm arguing for is that there are objectively healthy and 'unhealthy ways to live. Moral objectivism and subjectivism are equally wrong, there is only living in perfect concordance with a higher reality or a deviation from it. Morality is just a stepping stone to this realization. Cultures might disagree about killing but there is not a single culture that does not have a Good it aspires towards, albeit imperfectly, which would account for more depraved practices like female circumcision
>>755181
Isn't there more than one kind of justice? In the past harboring a run away slave was injust and deserving of death. In some cultures stealing a horse could get you the death sentence.
Today these are not so. In some places it is even considered unjust to ever give a death sentence.
What is and is not worthy of death has always changed in response to culture and circumstance. This is precisely moral relativity in something as shocking as when life should be destroyed and what is just.
>>755124
Moral relativism refers to morals, not statements. Morals are more what's good and bad. Saying that it's wrong is a statement.
>>755142
Is it better to cause intense suffering (torture, then medical treatment, then more torture until the individual is dead) to one indivdual or to kill 2 quickly and painlessly? If yes, then death, relative to torture, is moral.
FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, MORAL RELATIVISM IS GOOD
>>755194
Unjust? I've never heard it characterized that way. My point still stands regardless. Nutrition, healthy food, is not disproves because there are a lot of fat people.
>>755196
These are questions decided contextually. Each individual must embody his own version of the Good, but usually what happens is that these separate Goods tend to coincide. That's the amazing part
>>755201
How do you end up defining health as the objective morality? This hasn't even escaped the is-ought problem.
Also if you want to consider it 'moral' to ever kill something (to make it unhealthy) even a non-human thing relies on the idea that justice has an objective state.
>>755200
WELL THEN YOU ARE LOST
>>755181
>All I'm arguing for is that there are objectively healthy and 'unhealthy ways to live
Healthy as in physiologically healthy, as in conductive to living longer and not running into disease? Yes. But this doesn't translate into a larger society, into a sort of cultural "organism": And even so, there is no imperative for a specific culture to survive. Cultures aspire toward "good", but what "good" is has many limitations and ifs and buts and variations from one culture to the next, more sharply when farther away geographically and historically. Hence female circumcision, seppuku, etc. point to different ideas of "good" and neither can be described as "imperfectly" because to evaluate a morality by that criteria itself presupposes that there is a morality and a "good" which transcends all morality and then you'd be demonstrating that it exists through a circular argument which would be a nasty mess.
>>755228
Truth and error, health and sickness, what is wholesome and what is unwholesome, what is pure and what is impure. I call it morality because it generally corresponds to what think of as good. it's just there are no actual universal laws hanging over your head. To the individual who realizes this, he is own law. Not in an edgelord way either. Any person fully residing in this Good would never be like "I am muh own law better whack off to cunnies lmao"
>>755239
No, spiritually, or if that triggers you, mentally healthy
>>755240
Physical health may be objective. We can do all sorts of studies that measure the effects and figure out what the causes and signs of health vs bad health.
There is no objective imperative to follow this as you say, there are indeed consequences though.
>>755239
I would argue their idea of the good is warped. I sincerely believe anyone who wants the best for their themselves and society would never advocate for female circumcision. Their good is just not well-defined. "Woman should have respect for their bodies and treat the power of their sexuality with reverence and not give it so freely" is good, "also they shouldn't enjoy sex" is a fucking leal
>>755252
Though not as quantifiable I submit spiritual health is objectively verifiable as well. Compare the demeanor of a Zen monk and a sadomasochist. One is grounded. The other is a fucking mess
>>755206
Nazis thought the holocaust was good.
Feminists think affirmative action is good.
The only reason humans as a people tend to agree on stuff is because we're the same species
>>755263
You're not getting it. you arrive at your good/true will after eradicating everything what is conditioned and flawed in you, what derives from pathological complexes and what derives from the intrinsic purity of consciousness. Meditation and shit m8
>>755244
But how do you define mental health objectively and make it fit with a single code of behavior? If every society had a homogeneous structure and mores then we could say that which sits best with mental health in the context that it allows the individual to think and connect with the society he's a part of, but societies aren't that way. In 15th century Europe for a woman to be sexually uninhibited is unhealthy in that it disconnects her from society, hence perhaps immoral if we're defining morality in terms of "mental health" as you say. But today for a woman to have the same moral attitudes would mean an equal disconnect with society and alienation which would in the same context be "immoral". These are two different moralities and neither is objective, unless you'll try to argue for some objective "metamorality" for lack of a better word through which the only moral imperative is to be healthy, again if we define healthy in this way.
>>755259
quantifiable does not mean objective.
2+2 is objectively 4.
Being healthy over unhealthy is not an objectivily superior choice. Consider that some people will to willing die which is the very cessation of health. However the consequences we have are real and as meaningful as you make them.
>>755271
>However the consequences we have are real and as meaningful as you make them.
Precisely, but that makes it relative because killing myself may not have meaning for me but it may for you..
>>755270
It is a trail that can only be blazed by the individual. What if I got my shit together 110% but I still contribute indirectly to the suffering of animals and 3rd world laborers just by existing in this society? Certainly the individual is not responsible for this, but we can conceivably imagine a large subset of self-actualized persons who still contribute massively to suffering in indirect ways.
All I know is "before you save the world, you gotta save yourself" is Truth
>>755286
I agree, but individualistic morality itself should point away from an absolute or objective idea of morality
>>755277
You have to experience. it's a constant refinement and "polishing" of consciousness. Only after you look back at what you used to be do you realize how stark the differences in the quality of one's mind are now vs. Your past, degenerate self.
Again, this isn't "I'm not gonna masturbation because it's bad Lmao" it's "I'm not gonna masturbation be sure it does such and such and affects me negatively in such and such ways"
>>755271
Probably the only legitimate obstacle I've encountered, the fact that there is still no objective imperative for health. I can only say that. bringing this back to the individualistic aspect, that we are beings with choices and we can choose to live the best lives we can
>>755004
the fact all morals are relative and contingent to culture and other factors is inescapable
still, a wise man will maintain the given morality of the population he lives within, even if only to maintain his status and help the people 'get on with the programme', as people in general have problems enough
>>755291
It doesn't, at least if it is pursued with the aim of self-cultivation to the most profound lengths and not just some personal code based on mundane, rationalist principles. The individual differences will eventually disappear.
>>755295
A person can conduct themself perfectly fine with no real thoughts about objective vs subjective or being completly amoral.
>>755305
Well, sure, but it's a question of how far you want to go on that path
>>755271
>2+2 is objectively 4.
heresy
>>755315
what do you mean, 'how far' people live whole lives being practicaly amoral but acting moraly on the outside, raise families, survive catastrophies and wars, work day in and day out, reach high ranking positions, 'how far' do you want it to go?
>>755329
I don't get what you're trying to say. Some people fake it, so what? You can't fake enlightenment
>>755301
But even rationality aside, the irrational wills of humans oppose and collide with each other, the health and cultivation of my mind may depend that I only work 40 hours a week while a Taiwanese teenager working 60 hours a week makes the products I buy cheaply. If morality as a code of behaviors is the same for me as for him, then for his malnourished little brain it hasn't resulted in self-cultivation and it's been detrimental.
>>755334
>You can't fake enlightenment
whats that got to do with the price of socks in bangladesh?
maybe youre mixing up being amoral with being an asshole, or worse, a fool
>>755345
No, it's not a universal set of right behaviors but a set of general prescriptions that apply to all human beings by virtue of the nature of this real. Things like you are not your thoughts, the external will never fulfill you forever etc. All principles that, when internalized, encourage the development of a certain quality of consciousness
As for the question of if we all have equal opportunity to realize this I don't know. I feel like all self-actualization is just that, an actualization of a certain disposition of consciousness that was always there, and it's just not open to some
It's natural conclusion is moral nihilism, in my opinion. From there the next step is strictly individualistic morality (which is different from typical relativist thought in that the defining feature of this moral system isn't the society, but each individual).
How does a moral relativist respond to kant?
>>755142
The issue is that you don't have only "little details" setting different belief systems apart.
>>755097
Morality depends on human inclination, plain and simple.
