Since morality is entirely relative, how do we know if we're doing good?

[Ouroboros]

So basically, morality changes whimsically ...

Not whimsically. Whimsical means that it changes without any reasons at all, but that's not true. Morality reflects values, culture, opinions, views, beliefs, knowledge, etc in a society. Society changes, but not whimsically. The values, culture, etc, changes, but not whimsically. Which means morals don't change whimsically either.

 

[1robin]

Depends on which god would exist and what interpretation of what book or set morality... since we don't know which we would pick, it's better to choose a morality that's useful for most people and one that doesn't discard those who are weak either.

Ok I can agree with your use of the word relative here, but I don't agree that we should therefor invent some false morality because we cannot all agree on which God's morality is true. If we do not adopt some theoretically objective system then where do we get rights. In fact lets take this one step at a time. Lets say we discovered and founded a new nation. We are tasked with writing it's constitution. The first step is to determine what rights if any we have. Since I do not have your rights, you do not have my rights, nature is not a moral agent and does not have any rights to dispense, and the government does not have a warehouse full of rights to bestow where do we get rights and what are they? We must start with what is inherent before we can discuss law, which is contingent. So you make your opening statement for this new nation's moral foundation.

Actually let me back up to the first point. It was not correct. Morals are not relative to which God exists. Most God's are derivative anyway, entire classes are amoral, or impersonal. But we cannot decide which God exists and make it so. Morals are ontological associated with what God does exist. Our ability to determine which God is the one that exist is an epistemological issue and would have no effect on the what moral laws are actually true. So I can only give an epistemological agreement to your first statement.

 

[Nakosis]

If you read Hitler's own words he thought what he did was beneficial for the human race as a whole. He thought destroying the weak would strengthen the strong and used evolution as proof. He considered his actions both compassionate and reasonable for mankind as a whole. A by your standards Hitler was right. He did not live long enough to see if his actions produced what he thought they would but he used your criteria.

Only if he won. We can't really know the effect of changing history, but I suspect if he had won and was able to take control of most of Europe, then his standards would have been accepted by a large majority.

People now probably would have seen him as a visionary. No one wants to side with losers. People prefer jumping on the bandwagon of winners.

Hard to say how this change in history would effect you personally. Me, I probably wouldn't have been born since my grandfather was a German Jew.

I just see people who assume their own morality ought to be accepted universally.

 

[1robin]

He didn't understand evolution and the Nazis were against some of it as hurting the soul. He didn't think he was doing what was beneficial for the whole of humanity. Instead he believed that only his race and the Jews were capable of succeeding and he wanted to eliminate both the weak and the strong if he considered them enemies.

Maybe we do not understand it correctly now, it certainly does show that the strong dominate the weak. You ever seen a cat torture a mouse? Regardless, your standards did not include evolution they included an intent to make benefit mankind. That is exactly what Hitler thought he was doing. In fact it is hard to argue from a social Darwinist view that it would not have done so. In general he was experimenting on the few in order to help the many, unburdening the strong by removing the weak (watch a pack of wolves searching for the weakest deer in a heard), and reducing insanity by sterilizing the insane.

I would find it hard to argue with this in general from a subjective view. We need absolutes if we can rightly condemn him.

BTW I did not say his actions accurately reflected evolution or that his views were universally adopted in Germany.

It would basically be his opinion on what evolution justified, and his opinion on what was best for the human race in the long run against yours. And you lack any transcendent moral standard which exists to settle who is right. We could both attack Hitler and lives in the millions be done away with in the process but you would be doing it because he does not agree with you and I would do it because my world view includes an objective moral source. If my world view is correct Hitler was objectively wrong, at best if your world view Hitler was a bad evolutionist (possibly) or simply out of fashion.

 

[serp777]

Your presuming something that the entire issue hinges on. How do you know morality is relative? Relative to what? If God exists it is objective. What your describing is better labeled ethics not morality.

Because morality changes depending on society, the time period, etc regardless of religion or politics. And moral relativism is a well known subject that you can read about more online; its relative to the millions of factors that determine our morality for us. Its relative to culture, time period, etc which i did explain in the OP. If God exists he sure did not do a good job making things clear or objective; its almost like he doesnt care about objective morality. Plus, how do you know if God exists that morality is in fact objective? Maybe God doesnt care about pitiful human morality? Your entire argument makes presumptions about God that we're not required to accept because there's no evidence or reason supporting it. Don't tell God what to do.

 

[serp777]

Morality is by no means entirely relative, far from it.

It is moral realization that is deeply conditioned.

Morality itself is limited by the possibilities of the environment, there included the cognitive and sociological environment. In that sense it is a perpetual intellectual challenge; people are literally only as moral as their understanding of their choices and their consequences will allow them to be.

How is it not relative? Morality is relative to the conditioning each person has as you imply. Furthermore, you just said:

Morality itself is limited by the possibilities of the environment, there included the cognitive and sociological environment.

So in other words morality is relative to the cognitive and sociological environment; in other words the time period and the morality of those around you. It changes based on these; it is a function of these factors. Entirely relative. But nothing you've said seems to suggest its not relative except for the first sentence.

In that sense it is a perpetual intellectual challenge

So then its also relative to whatever the current intellectual challenges are.

 

[serp777]

If morality is relative then we can only be good relatively by the defined criteria of the place and age. There would be no ultimate good or bad.

And hence my argument; this is a nice summary. In fact its already relative to the place and age. Just look at history. No one has the authority to claim what ultimate good and bad is, and even if there is a good there's no reason he should care about human morality. If God exists he is neither good or bad since he created both good and evil.

 

[serp777]

Peace be on you.
God has granted us internal compass -- conscience. If it is rusted it may not work well.
There are certain morals which are taught by religion.
Society may make certain morals, they may contradict religious morals or may not.

The morals [like user manual] are taught by the One Who engineered us.

At complex situations God-made morals prove their superiority , For example:
Who would like to be nice with enemy but religion ask to do so: [Quran @ alislam.org ch5: v9] O ye who believe! be steadfast in the cause of Allah, bearing witness in equity; and let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just, that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah. Surely, Allah is aware of what you do.


At times, people may not able to make good judgments but religion tells:
[6:152] Say, ‘Come, I will rehearse to you what your Lord has forbidden: that you associate not anything as partner with Him, And you do good to parents, and that you kill not your children for fear of poverty — it is We Who provide for you and for them — and that you approach not foul deeds, whether open or secret; and that you kill not the life which Allah has made sacred, save by right. That is what He has enjoined upon you, that you may understand.


What if there is great threat to someone's life (on street), and person is passing by on his way to offer prayer, here the believer should use internal compass, first save the life then go to prayer....Thus at times, moral depends on situation.

But certainly it is no morality that a religion keep following the majority votes and keep compromising its teaching.

Plz find the word 'moral' in https://www.alislam.org/library/books/IslamsResponseToContemporaryIssues.pdf

wwwDOTalislamDOTorg/library/books/IslamsResponseToContemporaryIssues.pdf

There is much on morals with respect to modern society and religion.

This argument gets obliterated easily when you bring psychopaths into the mix; God gave them an internal compass from birth which says murder is A ok. Clearly God doesnt care about morality according to your argument that he has give us all an internal compass.

 

[serp777]

Have you ever taken an anthropology class?

Either bring an argument or dont but your condescension is entirely worthless and uninteresting.

 

[serp777]

Not whimsically. Whimsical means that it changes without any reasons at all, but that's not true. Morality reflects values, culture, opinions, views, beliefs, knowledge, etc in a society. Society changes, but not whimsically. The values, culture, etc, changes, but not whimsically. Which means morals don't change whimsically either.

Many of those factors change randomly and often without apparent reason unless you believe in some kind of determinism. Radical shifts in morality have occured all the time and without warning--pretty much whimsically.

 

[1robin]

Only if he won. We can't really know the effect of changing history, but I suspect if he had won and was able to take control of most of Europe, then his standards would have been accepted by a large majority.

That was my point. If this was 1940 and if God does not exist Hitler was merely out of fashion with our views and was not actually wrong. It is hard to lose a million of your own men stopping a guy merely because his methods conflict with our own. It was ours and England's Christian based objective morality did allow us to stop him. If Hitler had taken over the world and killed off all opposition he would be right in a legal sort of justification. That is why a transcendent objective moral foundation is far more important than human law. Without it those that we saved from Hitler would have had no more value or rights than a lab animal would. That is also probably why communistic atheist utopias kill so many people. Without God we are mere biological anomalies with no inherent values of sanctity what so ever.

People now probably would have seen him as a visionary. No one wants to side with losers. People prefer jumping on the bandwagon of winners.

That is why society so desperately needs moral foundations not subject to our own vanity and self centeredness.

Hard to say how this change in history would effect you personally. Me, I probably wouldn't have been born since my grandfather was a German Jew.

I have no idea either. I might be goose stepping around the US and praying to Darwin.

I just see people who assume their own morality ought to be accepted universally.

I think Christian morality would be better than the average but it was not designed to run a nation, it was designed to be adopted by an individual. I am merely arguing about the merits of a potentially objective morality versus ones made based on preference and opinion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Either bring an argument or dont but your condescension is entirely worthless and uninteresting.

You prat about morality changing whimsically and then demand that others bring an argument. Cute.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Many of those factors change randomly and often without apparent reason unless you believe in some kind of determinism. Radical shifts in morality have occured all the time and without warning--pretty much whimsically.

Again, have you ever taken an anthropology class? Or, perhaps, we should simply accept you as some self-anointed expert?

(For others, see, for example, Wilson's The Biological Basis of Morality.)

 

[Nakosis]

I think Christian morality would be better than the average but it was not designed to run a nation, it was designed to be adopted by an individual. I am merely arguing about the merits of a potentially objective morality versus ones made based on preference and opinion.

Well, we usually end up agreeing anyway. Without God it's moral nihilism.

 

[serp777]

You prat about morality changing whimsically and then demand that others bring an argument. Cute.

No i made an argument for morality changing whimsically because it depends on a million other factors, many of which do change randomly. You contributed absolutely nothing so far except for some condescension and an air of superiority which mind you is entirely unfounded.

 

[serp777]

Again, have you ever taken an anthropology class? Or, perhaps, we should simply accept you as some self-anointed experts?

(For others, see, for example, Wilson's The Biological Basis of Morality.)

So you need an argument from authority to accept the arguments I present. Clearly you're well educated and know a lot about proper debate.

Take the arguments for what they are instead of demanding, rather foolishly, that I need to have a bunch of ethos in order to have my arguments considered.

 

[serp777]

Well, we usually end up agreeing anyway. Without God it's moral nihilism.

Even with God its still moral nihilism. There's no good reason God should care about morality--he created good and evil so clearly he is neither since good and evil came into existence after God.

 

[serp777]

That was my point. If this was 1940 and if God does not exist Hitler was merely out of fashion with our views and was not actually wrong. It is hard to lose a million of your own men stopping a guy merely because his methods conflict with our own. It was ours and England's Christian based objective morality did allow us to stop him. If Hitler had taken over the world and killed off all opposition he would be right in a legal sort of justification. That is why a transcendent objective moral foundation is far more important than human law. Without it those that we saved from Hitler would have had no more value or rights than a lab animal would. That is also probably why communistic atheist utopias kill so many people. Without God we are mere biological anomalies with no inherent values of sanctity what so ever.

That is why society so desperately needs moral foundations not subject to our own vanity and self centeredness.

I have no idea either. I might be goose stepping around the US and praying to Darwin.

I think Christian morality would be better than the average but it was not designed to run a nation, it was designed to be adopted by an individual. I am merely arguing about the merits of a potentially objective morality versus ones made based on preference and opinion.

Christian morality would be awful to implement; you'd have to get rid of leviticus, exodus, and all the other disgusting sections that condone slavery, the murder of witches, etc. I don't want to live in the inquisition, how about you?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No i made an argument for morality changing whimsically because ....

No. This ...

So basically, morality changes whimsically depending on factors such as the society you live in,the time period you're born in, and the cultural and political influences that surround you.

is a claim (and a presupposition), not an argument.

 

[serp777]

No. This ...

​

is a claim (and a presupposition), not an argument.

As an individual you are born seemingly randomly into a particular time period/location, which usually have wildly different moralities. Your individual morality is determined by random factors because where and when you're born is random. Also your genetics are subject to random mutation that could very easily influence how your genes interact with the environment to produce your particular morality. You don't seem to understand the argument, or at least you grasp only a superficial version of it. In addition, factors like culture and society are in constant flux and can certainly change randomly as well as the expression and mutation of your genes--unless you believe in determinism in which case the burden of proof is on you. Making the claim that morality doesn't change randomly at all is a much larger claim to make since we know randomness is an integral component of our universe and existence.