moral relativism

Where agnostics and atheists can freely discuss

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Nilloc James
Site Supporter
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:53 am
Location: Canada

moral relativism

Post #1

Post by Nilloc James »

I'm curious as to where my fellow 'a's stand on this: are morals relative or not? Is this a rational conclusion of non-theism? Could objective morals exist without god(s)?

On a practical note: do we enhance or detract from the skeptical cause by arguing for/against moral relativism?

User avatar
dusk
Sage
Posts: 793
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:38 am
Location: Austria

Post #11

Post by dusk »

I think morality is a subject where too many philosophers just see no light, while it is rather simple.

Absolute morality exists in the form. I very much like living in a neighborhood where we do not beat each others heads in for no apparent reason. If I have any interest at all to live in such a neighborhood, it is absolutely immoral to beat other peoples head in. That moral statement remains absolutely and objectively true regardless whether I follow it or like it or a god says something about it.
It hinges though on the value on the goal it tries to further. Anybody who prefers more action and likes smashing heads in and finds the thrill of worrying every night whether his head gets smashed in exhilarating, will probably not see any reason that there is anything immoral about the same thing. A society simply shares some values and ostracizes those that do not share them. Morality is simply the web of rules of behavior needed to create some form of society/community. It isn't about individuals, its about a big group.

Inside a society their is an absoluteness to certain morals, some are more vague as the values aren't all exactly the same but why should the shark care whether surfers don't want to get eaten.

There is no meta human or meta cultural morals. Outside of a group of some sort morals simply don't exist. On a global scale they also change. Some people don't need to like you only not hate you so you don't need to treat them like family.
Where morals exist they are relative to the values of the group.

The problem with theists is that they usually think or believe that they are part of one special group that is the only one that really matters. Especially the monotheists need everybody else to follow their ultimative ought to morals of god who doesn't even bother with telling why quite often. Basically I would say theist just need moral statements to have a convincing power that goes beyond their own group to include all those that haven't already accepted their group (because in their mind other groups don't really exist, they are illusions). Their idea of morality just needs to have that special extra to make their world view work.
Those special morals that they need cannot exist without a god who basically just says everything else isn't real because everything else doesn't count. Since only my stuff count it is the only stuff and can be universal.

Though again I see that objective and absolute is both somewhat possible but the basic framework of what is USUALLY MEANT by absolute objective morals is not.
Wie? ist der Mensch nur ein Fehlgriff Gottes? Oder Gott nur ein Fehlgriff des Menschen?
How is it? Is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's blunders?

- Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
wiploc
Guru
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:26 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: moral relativism

Post #12

Post by wiploc »

Nilloc James wrote: are morals relative or not?
"Relative" is a hedge word. It means so many things to different people that it is impossible to answer the question in the abstract. You have to ask what the individual you are talking to means by the word, and hold her to that definition.


Could objective morals exist without god(s)?
Gods don't affect the matter one way or the other. If you can't have objective morals without gods, then you can't have them with gods either.

User avatar
wiploc
Guru
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:26 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: moral relativism

Post #13

Post by wiploc »

Nilloc James wrote: I'm curious as to where my fellow 'a's stand on this: are morals relative or not?
Depends entirely on what the particular person you're talking to means by "relative." Often (usually?) that person doesn't mean anything in particular (has a jumble of notions on the topic, that she doesn't even realize are confused and contradictory).


Is this a rational conclusion of non-theism?
Theism/non-theism doesn't have anything to do with it.


Could objective morals exist without god(s)?
See, you are opposing "objective" and "relative." You may have a jumble of confused notions yourself.

In any case, the answer to your question depends entirely on how the particular person you're talking to defines "objective."

But I can say this much: Gods don't have anything to do with it. For any given definition of "objective," one of two things is true: Either
- morality is not objective without god, but it also isn't objective with god; or
- morality is objective with god, but it also is objective without god.

In discussing this topic, you need to be alert. People will two-step between different meanings of "objective," without even knowing it. Okay, some people know better, but many people don't even know they are cheating.


On a practical note: do we enhance or detract from the skeptical cause by arguing for/against moral relativism?
If you argue for moral relativism as an atheist, you may have a perfectly good argument (depending on what you mean by "relative"). But theists won't hear that goodness. What they'll hear is that atheists have no real morals, that we are despicable creatures who can justify any behavior, for whom there is no difference between good and bad.

Post Reply