Moral relativists - Can they do wrong ?

[thomas]

When a moral relativist considers their own actions, do they always consider them to be 'good' ? I think this must be the case because I think that a moral relativist thinks 'good' means whatever they want to call 'good'. Is 'bad' a term a moral relativist would only apply to another person, meaning that they considered the other person to have done something that they themselves would not have done in that circumstance ?

edited to add 'only' to the last sentence to make its meaning clearer

[thomas]

What is the source of the guilt ? Do you mean that after the event there could be unintended consequences and therefore you feel you made the wrong choice ? Or do you mean that prior to the event you knew the act was bad and did it anyway, and therefore feel guilty ?

Guilt is an interesting emotion. It's like there is a "you" that decides what action to take and a "you" that judges that action. Strange, isn't it ?

[thomas]

No. Your mixing emotional relativism with moral relativism.
I don't understand what emotional relativism is ? Could you clarify it for me ?

[HeWhoAsks]

As I posted on some other thread, scientists posit that human morality is related (not exactly the same) to animal morality (which is widely observed). Morality comes from the social group (in primates, which humans are, and maybe other animals as well?), and that this developed through evolution because the survival of the group (and thereby the genes of the individuals in the group) could be better ensured.

This theory enables moral relativism, as one social group may have differing moral standards than another, which is exactly what we see in the world today. Of course, some aspect of morality tend to be the same among several or many social groups, but that isn't surprising assuming the evolutionary survival benefit of morality (what works in one group may very well work for another).

[Metman07]

I think that Ocmpoma put it pretty well:

Here's the secret to relativism, the thing that many can't grasp immediately (both relativists and those that don't realize that they're relativists have trouble with it):

Morality is relative. We each decide for ourselves what is moral, amoral, immoral, good, bad, right, wrong. Just as we decide which food tastes good.
I like borscht. I know quite a few people that don't. Does that mean that borscht tastes good, or bad?
Same with morality. I think that genocide is wrong. Hitler thought that genocide was okay, as long as it was antisemitic genocide. Is genocide right or wrong?

The answer, for a relativist, is yes and no. For me, borscht is good, for someone else, borscht is bad. For most people (one would hope), genocide is wrong. For others, it is good.
To alleviate this misunderstanding, I strongly urge relativists to take the time and effort to phrase moral concepts accurately, insteading of taking linguistic shortcuts:
shortcut - Borscht is tasty. proper - I feel (or think) that borscht is tasty.
shortcut - Genocide is wrong. proper - I feel (or think) that genocide is wrong.

A moral objectivist will counter that the proper speech renders a moral relativist unable to attack any behavior as 'wrong'. This is a fallacy. By the same logic (that is, the objectivist's), no one can say that Borscht tastes good (or bad), which is ridiculous. Each person has the ability to condemn those actions that they feel are morally wrong, just as each person has the ability to say that Borscht tastes like crap. The fact that relativists admit that someone else might disagree with their moral judgements does not make their moral judgements less valid. The next counter is the idea that everyone's moral outlook is equal - that the person who feels that muder is moral is just as right as the person who feels that it is immoral, or the one who feels that it is amoral. This is the whole point of moral relativism. When the objectivist says this, just look at them like you won the argument - because you have:

Morality is basically just a very strongly held opinion. Imagine someone getting sent to jail for disliking borscht, and you can see why legislating morality doesn't make sense. Legislating against harm makes sense - no problem with sending someone to jail for killing someone else who didn't like borscht. That is the point of moral relativism.

[WITHTEETH]

[thomas wrote:
Is 'bad' a term a moral relativist would apply to another person
Thomas, ill try to explain things to the best of my knoweldge on my own personal perspective. I believe people are generally good actually, we just have a bunch of misunderstandings blocking our path(different ethics, religions, parents). a strong sign of everybody being generally good is that everybody tries to justify what they do somehow, i know somtimes that justification can be bad much of the times, but its still a sign! remember right and wrong is a perspective, they actually think they are doing good(for the long term or short term). i don't like to call others bad, but we are judged by or actions and not intent or thoughts. Often people do get labeled as bad people since actions speak louder then anything else.

[thomas]

As I posted on some other thread, scientists posit that human morality is related (not exactly the same) to animal morality (which is widely observed). Morality comes from the social group (in primates, which humans are, and maybe other animals as well?), and that this developed through evolution because the survival of the group (and thereby the genes of the individuals in the group) could be better ensured.

This theory enables moral relativism, as one social group may have differing moral standards than another, which is exactly what we see in the world today. Of course, some aspect of morality tend to be the same among several or many social groups, but that isn't surprising assuming the evolutionary survival benefit of morality (what works in one group may very well work for another).
I get what you think about moral relativists and groups, and I was just trying to see how this kind of analysis bears up when applied to individuals, hence the way I worded the question.

[thomas]

[thomas wrote:
Is 'bad' a term a moral relativist would apply to another person
Thomas, ill try to explain things to the best of my knoweldge on my own personal perspective. I believe people are generally good actually,
As a MR you mean that you feel that people generally do what you think is good ?

we just have a bunch of misunderstandings blocking our path(different ethics, religions, parents).
As a MR surely you don't actually think there is a path ?

a strong sign of everybody being generally good is that everybody tries to justify what they do somehow, i know somtimes that justification can be bad much of the times, but its still a sign!
For me it's a sign that there is an absolute morality that people are seeking. Otherwise, why not call everything you choose to do "good" ?

remember right and wrong is a perspective, they actually think they are doing good(for the long term or short term). i don't like to call others bad, but we are judged by or actions and not intent or thoughts. Often people do get labeled as bad people since actions speak louder then anything else.
But these bad actions are judged as bad by who ? As a MR you just mean that you don't happen to like them, right ?

I can see a mental image of Philboid rolling his eyes

[ocmpoma]

Moral relativists can and do commit acts that they themselves consider morally wrong. As morality is emotionally based, and almost every action (if not every action) that humans commit is caused at some level by their emotions, it is certainly possible for humans to violate their own code of morality. Just as humans can also feel anger towards those they love, and deliberately seek to harm them (usually emotionally), they can also contradict themselves when it comes to morals.

I find it interesting that you see it as strange that a person can judge their own actions from a moral perspective and find them wanting. Do you find it strange that we can do the same thing from performance, goal-oriented, and relationship perspectives as well?

We cannot just choose to call whatever we do 'good' just as we cannot choose to call whatever food we eat 'tasty' and whomever we like 'likeable'. It works the other way around - actions we call 'good', we prefer to do; food we call 'tasty', we prefer to eat; people we call 'likeable' we prefer to be with. I don't just decide that whatever I eat is tasty, rather, I prefer to eat whatever I have decided is tasty.

[Striver]

If you study politics, you'll learn that they don't use the terms, "good" or "bad", but instead refer to "interests". This might make it a bit clearer.

Politics recognizes that a person or group may have particular interests, but doesn't weigh them to be good or bad, just to be. For example, if you want water for your band-aid plant, and I want water for my cattle, and we're in a dispute, which of us is right? It can't really be determined in an objective way.

When a person says they have "morals", they're really just reflecting their interests, in the political sense. It's in your interest, for example, to not be raped, or to be stolen from. It may be in your interest to see that your son can get married. This leads to the enactment of laws about conduct, and betrothal.

If you think about it this way, it's easier to get in someone else's head. For example, in the abstract, who cares one way or another about gay marriage? On the other hand, do you think you'd want to have gay parents? Everyone on this board will say, "sure, I wouldn't mind," because it's what "you're supposed to say" (reflection of the interest of being accepted by the group) but realistically, I think I'd hate it. I'd be beat up or teased all the time growing up.

"Oh shit! he said something controversial! Let's get him!"--If that's your reaction, it's being driven by a moral consideration, mostly likely the _interest_ you have in having the debate on that issue go one way or another.

Well, considerations like this go on internally with people when they decide whether they support something, and they make into morals, because most people aren't comfortable with a lack of absolutes to guide them.

But really, there is no right or wrong. There are only consequences. Realistically, gay marriage (to continue the example) has consequences that will be both beneficial and detrimental to people, both the parties getting married, and the people in their lives. It's being able to deal with knowing that a trade-off is being made and that it has to be enjoyed, endured, and accepted, that will really mark you as an adult thinker.

[Striver]

We cannot just choose to call whatever we do 'good' just as we cannot choose to call whatever food we eat 'tasty' and whomever we like 'likeable'. It works the other way around - actions we call 'good', we prefer to do; food we call 'tasty', we prefer to eat; people we call 'likeable' we prefer to be with. I don't just decide that whatever I eat is tasty, rather, I prefer to eat whatever I have decided is tasty.
I always thought that tasty and likeable were inherently subjective terms. you can call food tasty, and the listener understands you're talking about your own preference. It's just with morality, we are conditioned to accept the statement made by the person as an absolute. I don't know if this is cultural, or innate.

[ocmpoma]

Cultural.

[Little Earth Stamper]

...
But these bad actions are judged as bad by who ? As a MR you just mean that you don't happen to like them, right ?

I can see a mental image of Philboid rolling his eyes
I know that's how I do it. I usually appeal to principles like "minimising harm" and "enlightened self-interest" when justifying my moral ideas, but ultimately it's just my opinion that it's a good thing to harm as few people as possible. In fact, it's just my opinion that self-interest is superior to self-destruction.

Anyway, I'd love to have a more concrete foundation for my moral beliefs then just a gut feeling that hurting people is bad, but so far nobody has proposed an alternative.

I mean, people say god or religion can give us absolute morality, but to me, if morality is objective, then there should be some set of evidence that would convince me of any hypothetical moral system.

In other words, just as there would be a hypothetical set of evidence that would convince me that the speed of light in a vacuum is fourteen feet per minute, there should be some hypothetical evidence that would convince me that, say, it is acceptable to cause pain to innocent people for your own amusement. Frankly, I can't imagine what would convince me of that.

So, yes, I do use the "It's bad because my gut tells me it's bad" system of morality, but that's only because nobody has yet come up with a better system. Feel free to tell me about one if you have it.

[Philboid Studge]

I can see a mental image of Philboid rolling his eyes
More brow-furrowing than eye-rolling, thomas, because you've posed interesting and difficult questions.

I think the MR position has been fairly stated here. I will add that I think Little Earth's Stamper's "It's bad because my gut tells me it's bad" formula is perfectly compatible with the notion that human morality springs from an evolved survival strategy.

Guilt is an interesting emotion. It's like there is a "you" that decides what action to take and a "you" that judges that action. Strange, isn't it ?
No, it isn't.


In an etymological aside: There's baggage that comes with the words 'good' and 'bad' -- I suppose because the language was developed mostly by people who assumed there was an absolute source of morality. I'd always assumed the word 'good' is derived from the supposed source of the absolute, 'God.' Apparently not. It is related (via Middle and Old English and Old High German) to the Sanskrit word gadhya , which means, interestingly, 'what one clings to.'

[LogicMan]

I think that Ocmpoma put it pretty well:

Here's the secret to relativism, the thing that many can't grasp immediately (both relativists and those that don't realize that they're relativists have trouble with it):

Morality is relative. We each decide for ourselves what is moral, amoral, immoral, good, bad, right, wrong. Just as we decide which food tastes good.
I like borscht. I know quite a few people that don't. Does that mean that borscht tastes good, or bad?
Same with morality. I think that genocide is wrong. Hitler thought that genocide was okay, as long as it was antisemitic genocide. Is genocide right or wrong?

The answer, for a relativist, is yes and no. For me, borscht is good, for someone else, borscht is bad. For most people (one would hope), genocide is wrong. For others, it is good.
To alleviate this misunderstanding, I strongly urge relativists to take the time and effort to phrase moral concepts accurately, insteading of taking linguistic shortcuts:
shortcut - Borscht is tasty. proper - I feel (or think) that borscht is tasty.
shortcut - Genocide is wrong. proper - I feel (or think) that genocide is wrong.

A moral objectivist will counter that the proper speech renders a moral relativist unable to attack any behavior as 'wrong'. This is a fallacy. By the same logic (that is, the objectivist's), no one can say that Borscht tastes good (or bad), which is ridiculous. Each person has the ability to condemn those actions that they feel are morally wrong, just as each person has the ability to say that Borscht tastes like crap. The fact that relativists admit that someone else might disagree with their moral judgements does not make their moral judgements less valid. The next counter is the idea that everyone's moral outlook is equal - that the person who feels that muder is moral is just as right as the person who feels that it is immoral, or the one who feels that it is amoral. This is the whole point of moral relativism. When the objectivist says this, just look at them like you won the argument - because you have:

Morality is basically just a very strongly held opinion. Imagine someone getting sent to jail for disliking borscht, and you can see why legislating morality doesn't make sense. Legislating against harm makes sense - no problem with sending someone to jail for killing someone else who didn't like borscht. That is the point of moral relativism.

Your attempt to provide an objective argument, as a set up for your own argument, has failed. Here is why:

You use the metaphor of the Borscht as an example of how peoples taste varies and try to use this in order to say that morals are the same as peoples taste, or opinion. This metaphor is incorrect as it fails to discriminate the difference between that which is has to be objective and that which can be subjective. Here is a proper metaphor:

Person A thinks the color red is the best color for an automobile, and person B thinks more formal color schemes like black or silver-grey are best. THIS IS SUBJECTIVE and is fine.
The engineering of the vehicles that make them function is CAN NOT BE SUBJECTIVE. The engineering has to deal with the reality of the environment in which the vehicle has to work and consequently HAS TO BE OBJECTIVE.

We are a genetically evolved response to the local environment in which we live. We are individuals in that we do not share a common brain

Here is the tie in with morals:

Morals, like engineering, are based on the nature of the subject that they deal with, as well as the environment in which the subject has to function. This is where the concept of individual rights and property rights come from.

Now you might say that from a visual standpoint that I like women who are thin and chesty, while another guy might like bigger booty. That is subjective.
How we deal with these individual woman is not. To deal with them morally we have to take into account that they are there own property and that they have a right to choose what to do with their lives.

The social covenant is that we have to respect those moral rights and that a person who does not respect these rights forfeits their own rights and should be removed from society.


This is my final post (this internet forum thing was an interesting experience) so I wanted it to be a serious one and it is proper that it be with you occompa as I have posted in more arguments with you than anyone else here. I give you the final rebuttal. Happy posting...

Quick Final Edit: Thomas; it is halarious that, on my final post, we agree on something.

Guilt is an interesting emotion. It's like there is a "you" that decides what action to take and a "you" that judges that action. Strange, isn't it ?
No, it isn't.
Yes it is. Emotions are a response to a thought or a thought followed by an action. From a physical standpoint the reactions are identical. From an intellectual standpoint they are contextually assessed in order to decide weather it is good (joy, elation, etc.) or bad (fear, regret, guilt, etc.)

[Philboid Studge]

This is my final post (this internet forum thing was an interesting experience)
Good-bye LogicMan! Please remember two things: 1) Absolute knowledge inevitably corrupts, absolutely 2) Even Mr. Spock has a human side

[Philboid Studge]

Emotions are a response to a thought or a thought followed by an action. From a physical standpoint the reactions are identical. From an intellectual standpoint they are contextually assessed in order to decide weather it is good (joy, elation, etc.) or bad (fear, regret, guilt, etc.)
And you find this 'strange' why?

[ocmpoma]

Okay, a rebuttal that I know won't be rebutted - at least not by LM... interesting.

Morality is not like the engineering of a car. Besides, even if it was, there are various ways to engineer a car - to go faster or to get better gas mileage, for example. Which of these is the 'best' way? There is no best way, because everyone has different goals and different preferences. A corvette is nor the 'best' car for a single mom. Or is it? Again, best is an individual opinion.

The concept of individual and property rights, like the concept of rights in general, is a concept. It exists only in the minds of those who possess such a concept. And for some people, such concepts are completely wrong.

I agree with you that there are some things which are must be objective, in the sense that there are things that exist, externally, regardless of the interaction of a sentient being. A rock, for example, is objectively a rock (that is, it has certain physical characteristics - which can be quantitatively expressed - that exists regardless of whether anyone has ever encountered the rock). Morals are not such an external thing. Without moral creatures to create morality internally, there would be no morals.

Finally, the simplest (in my mind) proof of the subjectivity and relativity of morality is this: To me, all things which are objective must be quantifiable. Without numbers, there can be no objective agreement on anything. '50mpg > 20mpg' is objective. 'Fast is better than good mileage' is not. Which boils down to the fact that '> (greater than)' is objective, whereas 'better than' is not. Morality is expressed in the latter, qualitative terminology - not stealing is better than stealing. It cannot be quantified (not stealing is greater than stealing) and therefore cannot be objective.

I can't really help you with the last bit - finding the internal 'judging' voice (commonly called conscience) strange. 'Strange' is subjective, after all.


I have enjoyed reading your posts, LM, and will indeed miss your presence here. You were, in my opinion, the most level-headed of the non-theistic objectivists to visit the forums.

[thomas]

Finally, the simplest (in my mind) proof of the subjectivity and relativity of morality is this: To me, all things which are objective must be quantifiable. Without numbers, there can be no objective agreement on anything. '50mpg > 20mpg' is objective. 'Fast is better than good mileage' is not. Which boils down to the fact that '> (greater than)' is objective, whereas 'better than' is not. Morality is expressed in the latter, qualitative terminology - not stealing is better than stealing. It cannot be quantified (not stealing is greater than stealing) and therefore cannot be objective.
I'm not sure that all things objective must be quantifiable. Is logic quantifiable ? Morality is only expressed in a qualitative way in the same way that the answer to any objective question is, in the sense that being right is better than being wrong. Really, morality says that not stealing is morally good and stealing is morally bad and that the aim is to be morally good.

[ocmpoma]

"Is logic quantifiable ?"
Yes.

"Morality is only expressed in a qualitative way in the same way that the answer to any objective question is, in the sense that being right is better than being wrong."
The concept that right is better than wrong, or correct better than incorrect, is subjective, not objective. An objective answer to an objective question is either correct or incorrect - which is 'better' is up to the individual.

"Really, morality says that not stealing is morally good and stealing is morally bad and that the aim is to be morally good."
That is only one subjective version of morality. It is entirely possible for someone's morality to say that stealing is morally good.

[Lurker]

Finally, the simplest (in my mind) proof of the subjectivity and relativity of morality is this: To me, all things which are objective must be quantifiable. Without numbers, there can be no objective agreement on anything. '50mpg > 20mpg' is objective. 'Fast is better than good mileage' is not. Which boils down to the fact that '> (greater than)' is objective, whereas 'better than' is not. Morality is expressed in the latter, qualitative terminology - not stealing is better than stealing. It cannot be quantified (not stealing is greater than stealing) and therefore cannot be objective.
I used the east/west analogy in the other thread for morality. There is no place as "east" so in that respect it is not objective or quantifiable at all. The direction, however, is very objective. I think (feel?) the term "moral compass" is appropriate because morality is objective in it's direction.

[ocmpoma]

East may not be entirely subjective, but it is certainly entirely relative.

[Lurker]

East may not be entirely subjective, but it is certainly entirely relative.
Relative to a fixed standard right? Out in space you may not have east/west, but you have 'this way' (points one direction) & 'the other way' (points the opposite direction) - both are objective regardless of where you are positioned. Anyway, my claim is morality doesn't have to be quantifiable to be objective.

[ocmpoma]

"Relative to a fixed standard right? Out in space you may not have east/west, but you have 'this way' (points one direction) & 'the other way' (points the opposite direction) - both are objective regardless of where you are positioned. Anyway, my claim is morality doesn't have to be quantifiable to be objective."
'This way' and 'that way' are not East. And I am interested in how you back up your claim in a non-quantifiable objectivity (in general - doesn't have to be morality). Oh, and 'East' as a place does exist: it's the area of the globe between 0º and 180º East Latitude.

[Lurker]

'This way' and 'that way' are not East. And I am interested in how you back up your claim in a non-quantifiable objectivity (in general - doesn't have to be morality).
I don't know how to back it up any further that what I'm saying. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - but I don't see it. "This way" is an objective direction based on visual input (your pointing finger). No other frame of reference is needed and "this way" is always the same direction no matter who is the observer or where you are in space. I don't think you could quantify it could you?

Oh, and 'East' as a place does exist: it's the area of the globe between 0º and 180º East Latitude.
If I'm between 0º and 180º East Latitude can I still go toward the place called east? If so then I haven't arrived at that place.

[ocmpoma]

The fact that direction can be quantified is unrelated to morality. I think the problem is you've taken the analogy too far. Your original post involved morality as a direction in that everyone agrees (more or less) that east is east. Now you're saying that since east (or 'this way')is an objective direction (relative to a fixed point), morality is objective. That's a pretty big leap.
"This way" can most certainly be quantified: Use an x, y, z axis and you're in business.

East is between 0º and 180º. If you are located between 0º and 180º, you are already in the East. You can still go east (not to the East), and if you go East long enough you will wind up in the West. Cool, isn't it? Your question is the same as, "If I am in my house, can I still go home?" One is a direction, the other a location.

[Lurker]

The fact that direction can be quantified is unrelated to morality. I think the problem is you've taken the analogy too far. Your original post involved morality as a direction in that everyone agrees (more or less) that east is east. Now you're saying that since east (or 'this way')is an objective direction (relative to a fixed point), morality is objective. That's a pretty big leap.
"This way" can most certainly be quantified: Use an x, y, z axis and you're in business.
I don't think an arrow out in space needs any other reference points (x,y,z axis) to be objective. Try quantifying the direction of the arrow without an axis or any other frame of reference. I don't think you can, yet it still points objectively "this way". If everything objective must be quantified then how do you quantify the x,y,z axis, and then how do you quantify the next thing? It's an unending regression and at some point you have to start with an axiom that is objective by fiat.

Maybe my analogy has gone too far - I don't know. The direction of the arrow is objective relative to itself, and good is objective relative to itself - whatever that really means. You know evil only because you know good and vice versa. It sounds relative and unobjective, but I don't think it really is. My brain is overheating.

[LogicMan]

Okay, a rebuttal that I know won't be rebutted - at least not by LM... interesting.

Morality is not like the engineering of a car. Besides, even if it was, there are various ways to engineer a car - to go faster or to get better gas mileage, for example. Which of these is the 'best' way? There is no best way, because everyone has different goals and different preferences. A corvette is nor the 'best' car for a single mom. Or is it? Again, best is an individual opinion.
Checked in to see your response as is proper and there is something here that I felt compelled to respond to, but this is the last time, as this can go on forever and I have to concentrate on other things.

You missed the context, and you might like this response. I never said one design is best. In fact what you pointed out is correct. It is the context of meeting the reality of the environment that counts.

The same is true of morality i.e. as long as you deal with someone as an individual there are probably an infinite amount of ways you can interact. The context of what we are and the environment in which we exist along with the context of the individual situation.

But if you ignore the nature of what your dealing with you in one case will create a failed design and in the other engage in immoral behavior.

Philboid I am affraid I read Thomas's post too quick. I do not find conscience to be strange.



I have enjoyed reading your posts, LM, and will indeed miss your presence here. You were, in my opinion, the most level-headed of the non-theistic objectivists to visit the forums.
It has been a pleasure. No once and for all back to the wasteland.