Moral Relativism

[pax]

Debate Question: Does moral relativism apply to all moral beings, or is there an unimpeachable moral standard which transcends all moral beings?

[ThatGirlAgain]

Debate Question: Does moral relativism apply to all moral beings, or is there an unimpeachable moral standard which transcends all moral beings?

Neither one. Moral standards reside in the collection of social customs and taboos passed on in a society and probably to some degree in predilections to certain types of behavior passed on in the gene pool. In both cases these moral standards support the continued survival and well-being of the community that holds to them.

Morals are not purely relative in that they do have real world consequences in terms of survival. Neither are they purely absolute in any sense of being God given. Different societies existing in different environments and with different histories have both simillarities and variations in moral standards. Neither of these is suprising if one considers the role of moral standards in terms of survival.

[Bust Nak]

Debate Question: Does moral relativism apply to all moral beings, or is there an unimpeachable moral standard which transcends all moral beings?

There is no intrinsic value. All value are relative to the evaluator, i.e. beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As such moral - judging of actions or thoughts based on their value, is subjective.

I am a moral subjectivist. My thoughts can be found here. Feel free to rise any objections either here or in that thread.

[Thatguy]

Debate Question: Does moral relativism apply to all moral beings, or is there an unimpeachable moral standard which transcends all moral beings?

Neither one. Moral standards reside in the collection of social customs and taboos passed on in a society and probably to some degree in predilections to certain types of behavior passed on in the gene pool. In both cases these moral standards support the continued survival and well-being of the community that holds to them.

Morals are not purely relative in that they do have real world consequences in terms of survival. Neither are they purely absolute in any sense of being God given. Different societies existing in different environments and with different histories have both simillarities and variations in moral standards. Neither of these is suprising if one considers the role of moral standards in terms of survival.

Can a person have moral views that differ from those of the social customs and taboos of the person's society for reasons other than genetically influenced actions? If my society says that not worshiping the gods, say, is immoral yet I don't personally do so, am I immoral? My society would judge me as immoral, I would not. Is morality evaluated only at the societal level?

I see morality as influenced by society and genetics, but ultimately a personal question. But is this more than a semantic difference in how we use the term?

[pax]

Further debate questions:

1). Are all moral beings responsible for their own morality?

2). If morality is subjective, can one moral being hold another moral being to their own standard of morality?

[Moses Yoder]

Further debate questions:

1). Are all moral beings responsible for their own morality?

2). If morality is subjective, can one moral being hold another moral being to their own standard of morality?

If we were created by a creator and s/he had morals, we would be responsible to follow his or her morals because we would owe our being to it. In the same way if we created a machine with AI and it destroyed our family, we would destroy the machine.

If there is no creator, then there can be no standard of morals. We would have had to evolve from nothing, and the rule of the fittest surviving would deem it necessary for the strongest to take what s/he wants, thus negating morals. The thought that we can survive better by sharing our resources with others is just so much horse puckey. Right now gasoline costs almost $4 per gallon here, because I am sharing it with billions of other people. If I didn't live in a society of losers I wouldn't need gasoline and I would live in a lot nicer house because I would force slaves to build it for me, after stealing a cache of AK-47s.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Debate Question: Does moral relativism apply to all moral beings, or is there an unimpeachable moral standard which transcends all moral beings?

Neither one. Moral standards reside in the collection of social customs and taboos passed on in a society and probably to some degree in predilections to certain types of behavior passed on in the gene pool. In both cases these moral standards support the continued survival and well-being of the community that holds to them.

Morals are not purely relative in that they do have real world consequences in terms of survival. Neither are they purely absolute in any sense of being God given. Different societies existing in different environments and with different histories have both similarities and variations in moral standards. Neither of these is surprising if one considers the role of moral standards in terms of survival.

Can a person have moral views that differ from those of the social customs and taboos of the person's society for reasons other than genetically influenced actions? If my society says that not worshiping the gods, say, is immoral yet I don't personally do so, am I immoral? My society would judge me as immoral, I would not. Is morality evaluated only at the societal level?

I see morality as influenced by society and genetics, but ultimately a personal question. But is this more than a semantic difference in how we use the term?

Good points.

An important purpose of moral systems is to control individual tendencies that might tend to impair the survival and well-being of the community. For example, humans are both selfish and altruistic. Pure altruism is not a good long term strategy for the practitioner since it works against its own survival. Pure selfishness is not a good long term strategy for the practitioner since we are not all that well equipped for survival outside a community. Moral systems look to balance these traits. Where that balance ought to lie depends on environmental conditions. This is a general feature of moral systems, balancing conflicting tendencies.

Since moral systems are the product of evolutionary processes (in my view anyway) changes arise someplace. Genetic changes in behavior are relatively rare and would need to be really beneficial to spread throughout a population against the pressure of societal forces. But changes in behavior resulting from personal decisions (or whims) are much more common. Moreover the benefits and/or drawbacks can be judged by others, even predictively, on other than purely Darwinian mechanics.

In the end, morality is evaluated by its end results. Moral principles survive or not depending on whether their practitioners successfully pass on those principles. Morality is not purely subjective since it has consequences for its own survival. But neither is it absolute in the sense of its being fixed for all people at all times.

And I have not even gotten around to the role of religion…

[Bust Nak]

1). Are all moral beings responsible for their own morality?

Yes, all moral beings are responsible for forming their own morality. Although I wouldn't use the word "responsible" since morality is just a natural part of being a moral being.

2). If morality is subjective, can one moral being hold another moral being to their own standard of morality?

Yes, I hold other moral beings to my own standard of morality all the time.

[Frosty]

Further debate questions:

1). Are all moral beings responsible for their own morality?

2). If morality is subjective, can one moral being hold another moral being to their own standard of morality?

1). A difficult question if one is to believe morals are subjective. I would honestly say that noone is really 'responsible' for anything in the grand scheme of things but (and I agree with much of what thatgirlagain had to say about morality's rising through evolution and society and human awareness etc.) considering morals as subjective would mean a person could claim her or himself as moral on no basis at all or on any set of rules, creeds, doctrine or personal code that they prefer, and with the most or the least hypocrisy possible. But in short, no I don't think anyone is responsible for anything. In society, especially modern society, however, responsibility for many things that can be considered moral is often required.

2). In society there is often a set of rules and limitations that are set down in order to protect, control, and govern the people that are normally based on an agreed upon set of absolute moral principles (right to life, liberty, happiness as an example) so in a way for a society to function there must be some moral beings holding some standards of morality on certain issues that have been detected to be the most fundamental and important to human survival. Beyond our well being and survival I'd say the moral standard of one person to another may be as different as black and white so no, I don't think one being can hold any being to any standard fundamentally, so I'd definitely have to say that no one being can hold another to their standard of morality outside the rule of law.

[Jax Agnesson]

Further debate questions:

1). Are all moral beings responsible for their own morality?

2). If morality is subjective, can one moral being hold another moral being to their own standard of morality?

Easy, tiger! Let's get your first question addressed from more-than-two viewpoints.
For myself, I'm with ThatGirlAgain. Others might need time to differ.
Anybody else got a view?