Moral Relativists

[Soeldner]

So, I was watching "Band of Brothers" (fantastic series btw) and it got me thinking about morality and lawlessness during such a time through the eyes of certain postmodernists...

So, for all you moral relativists, I was hoping to get your thoughts on the Holocaust. Was it wrong? If not, were the trials for high ranking nazi officials "unfair" (careful of that trap! ), as they were only following their own cultural/ideological understanding of "right?" Also, more generally, if all this is the case, is any one really ever guilty of their actions and should they ever be punished?

 

[darkendless]

So, I was watching "Band of Brothers" (fantastic series btw) and it got me thinking about morality and lawlessness during such a time through the eyes of certain postmodernists...

So, for all you moral relativists, I was hoping to get your thoughts on the Holocaust. Was it wrong? If not, were the trials for high ranking nazi officials "unfair" (careful of that trap! ), as they were only following their own cultural/ideological understanding of "right?" Also, more generally, if all this is the case, is any one really ever guilty of their actions and should they ever be punished?

The Nazi officials were aware of the implications of their actions. They lived before the holocaust, and they knew how unacceptable genocide was. Their cultural understanding was changed, they had no excuse not to challenge it but they were all too absorbed by Hitlers words.

 

[Willamena]

So, I was watching "Band of Brothers" (fantastic series btw) and it got me thinking about morality and lawlessness during such a time through the eyes of certain postmodernists...

So, for all you moral relativists, I was hoping to get your thoughts on the Holocaust. Was it wrong? If not, were the trials for high ranking nazi officials "unfair" (careful of that trap! ), as they were only following their own cultural/ideological understanding of "right?" Also, more generally, if all this is the case, is any one really ever guilty of their actions and should they ever be punished?

Are you proposing that the moral relativist would be required to say that it is not "wrong" because the Nazi saw himself doing something "right"?

This is moral relativism: for each person who judges the situation, there is a right and wrong, there is a guilty and a not guilty, and there is punishment for the guilty. Some will see right, some will see wrong, some will see guilty, some see not guilty. Some will judge, some will not.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm curious what you mean by "moral relativism", Soeldner.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Actually Willamena it depends on which form of Moral Relativism which you ascribe to.

Some forms of moral relativism assert that each person determines their own moral framework. Some forms assert that cultures determine their own moral framework. Some forms assert that definitive moral knowledge is impossible to possess. Some forms assert merely that each situation can be viewed differently by different people and as such there will be different moral responses by different people.


MTF

 

[Sunstone]

Moral relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm much more curious what Soeldner means by "moral relativism" than what Wiki means by it.

 

[Willamena]

Actually Willamena it depends on which form of Moral Relativism which you ascribe to.

Some forms of moral relativism assert that each person determines their own moral framework. Some forms assert that cultures determine their own moral framework. Some forms assert that definitive moral knowledge is impossible to possess. Some forms assert merely that each situation can be viewed differently by different people and as such there will be different moral responses by different people.


MTF

I don't see those as distinct forms. Whether an individual or a group, there is a subject for whom a unique decision is made about the morality of a situation, and there are unique case situations.

 

[Alceste]

I'm much more curious what Soeldner means by "moral relativism" than what Wiki means by it.

Are you interested in what I think he means, since he's not here?

I'll tell you anyway - we touched on it at the end of that Atheist camp thread. I believe Soeldner is of the opinion there is a "right" and a "wrong" that exist independently of the human mind (read: God's morality) and that all human morals are / should be an attempt to conform to this objective truth.

So, from his point of view, moral relativism might seem like the rejection of "God's morals". Which is why evil deeds (i.e. Holocaust) are often the first thing to jump into the mind of religious believers when they contemplate the suggestion that morality might be entirely generated by and contained within the human mind.

To answer the question, I think the Holocaust was wrong, and the people who perpetrated it were guilty of the greatest of evils. It is right that they were tried, but I have mixed feelings about their execution. Capital punishment strikes me as hypocrisy.

But that's ME saying this, not God. I'm sure Goebbels would have offered a completely different perspective, had he not killed himself, his wife and his six children at the end of the war. My morals are in my mind, his were in his mind. When there are more people who agree with me than Goebbels, Goebbels gets to be "wrong", and I get to be "right". On the other hand, before the Nazis were outnumbered by invading troops, there would have been more people who agreed with Goebbels than me, and then I would have been in trouble.

 

[Sunstone]

Are you interested in what I think he means, since he's not here?

I'll tell you anyway - we touched on it at the end of that Atheist camp thread. I believe Soeldner is of the opinion there is a "right" and a "wrong" that exist independently of the human mind (read: God's morality) and that all human morals are / should be an attempt to conform to this objective truth.

So, from his point of view, moral relativism might seem like the rejection of "God's morals". Which is why evil deeds (i.e. Holocaust) are often the first thing to jump into the mind of religious believers when they contemplate the suggestion that morality might be entirely generated by and contained within the human mind.

To answer the question, I think the Holocaust was wrong, and the people who perpetrated it were guilty of the greatest of evils. It is right that they were tried, but I have mixed feelings about their execution. Capital punishment strikes me as hypocrisy.

But that's ME saying this, not God. I'm sure Goebbels would have offered a completely different perspective, had he not killed himself, his wife and his six children at the end of the war. My morals are in my mind, his were in his mind. When there are more people who agree with me than Goebbels, Goebbels gets to be "wrong", and I get to be "right". On the other hand, before the Nazis were outnumbered by invading troops, there would have been more people who agreed with Goebbels than me, and then I would have been in trouble.

The notion that moral values exist independent of the mind is an interesting one, but how could one prove it? And if one could not prove it, would it not then be as if no moral values existed independent of the mind?

By the way, as I understand it, the Nazis themselves believed their values were validated by some reality outside of their own minds. Obviously, they were no more in touch with an absolute source of values than anyone else.

 

[Alceste]

The notion that moral values exist independent of the mind is an interesting one, but how could one prove it? And if one could not prove it, would it not then be as if no moral values existed independent of the mind?

By the way, as I understand it, the Nazis themselves believed their values were validated by some reality outside of their own minds. Obviously, they were no more in touch with an absolute source of values as anyone else.

Yeah. The Nazis were Christians. Makes me wonder why Christians are always bringing them up as an example of the need for Christian morality. They'd make their case better by bringing up Stalin or Mao. (Then again, I could always retort with the Nazis).

As to your first two questions, I agree. If you can agree with questions.

 

[Sunstone]

Perhaps, it would be comforting if there were some absolute standard by which the Nazis could be judged immoral, but the mere fact it might discomfort us -- or even horrify us -- that there is not an absolute standard is not a logical grounds for asserting there is such a standard.

 

[Alceste]

Perhaps, it would be comforting if there were some absolute standard by which the Nazis could be judged immoral, but the mere fact it might discomfort us -- or even horrify us -- that there is not an absolute standard is not a logical grounds for asserting there is such a standard.

I agree! But I also think the whole issue looks quite different from the perspective of a person who believes in a creator god. As a committed moral relativist, I must accept that there is no external measure by which I could determine which of us is objectively "right". So I will have to be content with my own complete certainty it happens to be me in this instance.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I don't see those as distinct forms. Whether an individual or a group, there is a subject for whom a unique decision is made about the morality of a situation, and there are unique case situations.

The premise of Moral Relativism is not distinguished from Moral Absolutism via the uniqueness of the decision (because under moral absolutism while your reasons for acting a certain way should not change, no circumstance is ever the same, so all decisions will be unique), but rather by the source of the reasons.


All situations in life are unique. No one is ever presented with the same situation as anyone else. You are different and the situation is different. But what does matter is how you "reason" your decision one way or another.


Some moral relativists believe absolute morality is impossible and we shouldn't try to find a system which can encompass everyone (morality is too complex). Some moral relativists believe that whatever a culture finds acceptable is the final say on what is or is not ultimately acceptable. Some moral relativists (somewhat naively in my opinion) attribute the ultimate say to the individual's conscience. And some moral relativists believe that since morality must always be understood in the context of varied circumstance that any attempt to ascribe morality one way or another is ultimately wrong since what works for you won't work for others (morality is "immoral").


MTF

 

[TheKnight]

So, I was watching "Band of Brothers" (fantastic series btw) and it got me thinking about morality and lawlessness during such a time through the eyes of certain postmodernists...

So, for all you moral relativists, I was hoping to get your thoughts on the Holocaust. Was it wrong? If not, were the trials for high ranking nazi officials "unfair" (careful of that trap! ), as they were only following their own cultural/ideological understanding of "right?" Also, more generally, if all this is the case, is any one really ever guilty of their actions and should they ever be punished?

As I said in another thread. There is no such thing as an intrinsically wrong actions. The morality of an action is determined by it's relation to the intent of the action (or the goal-framework in which the action was committed).

As far as the Holocaust goes, from my perspective it was wrong. From the Nazi perspective though, it would not have been.

 

[Storm]

So, for all you moral relativists,

I'm technically a relativist, though my thoughts on it are a bit more complex. I'll get into it later, if you like.

I was hoping to get your thoughts on the Holocaust. Was it wrong?

Yes.

is any one really ever guilty of their actions

Yes.

and should they ever be punished?

Yes, with a caveat: rehabilitation is preferable to punishment. However, not all people can be rehabilitated.

 

[CarlinKnew]

But in the grander scheme of things, does that justify what the Nazis did, let alone make it okay?

Isn't it a bit contradictory to ask about "the grander scheme of things" in a thread addressed to moral relativists?

 

[Storm]

The notion that moral values exist independent of the mind is an interesting one, but how could one prove it? And if one could not prove it, would it not then be as if no moral values existed independent of the mind?

Seems that way to me. Saying God has determined morality and all we need do is conform always struck me as simply passing the buck. It's an excuse not to think about it.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Why? You can look at isolated situations if you want, but you can't deny that things happen on a big scale. "Wow, that's a nice hydrogen atom, that's part of that water particle, that belongs to that drop of water, falling off Niagra falls." Just like you can always go into greater detail, there's always a bigger picture.

Like TheKnight said, the Holocaust was wrong from our perspective. From a Nazi's perspective it may or may not have been wrong. What bigger picture are you looking for?

 

[Willamena]

Oh crap! Another Wikipedia link! RUUUN!
Moral absolutism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't get, in that, why "absolute" equates to "always".

Absolute and relative are like perfect and imperfect: aspects of essentially the same thing. If "everything is relative and there is no absolute," then you've created something absolutely relative. If absolute stands in contrast to the relative, then you've created the relatively absolute.

 

[Soeldner]

Hey all, sorry about the delayed response! I posted that before I went to bed. However, due to work finally slowing down, I'll go ahead and post really fast....

Anyways, what I find intriguing is that every time I perform a thought experiment on moral relativism, it nearly always degenerates in to anarchy in my mind. So, I was hoping some body could give me a viable model that seems to be more stable. My contention is that if you are a true moral relativist, then right and wrong are a matter of perception. If this were in fact the case, and this is the premise that we adopt and understand, then we don't have a basis for punishing some one, because they were operating on what they conceived to be right and we don't have a "right" to punish them. Furthermore, since the "enlightened" know that it is all relative, we should rise above this ridiculous notion of absolute morality and.... do what to these individuals who believe murder, theft, and rape are correct? We can't rehabilitate them, because that would be imposing our relativistic morality on them... which we don't have the "right" to do such a thing, correct? I mean a person's freedom is unalienable.. wait, no, that is an absolute. So, freedom isn't really self evidently an absolute right, but just our culture imposing itself upon our understanding. So, how do we handle these mislabeled "criminals?"

Sunstone: My definition to moral relativism is pretty much dead on with what alceste is saying. Moral relativists are those who believe that morality is part of one's ideological (sociological, biological, cultural) framework outside of a absolute foundation that exists across all sentient beings.

Alceste: "Nazis were christian" that's quite a generalization. If by that you mean Germany was historically a Christian "state" (polarized by the thirty years war and Cuius regio, eius religio) then you are right. But to claim that each nazi actually followed the bible (which once again, at this time, there were tons of anti religious dogma (Nietzsche, Marx) being propagated through their society, so it's difficult to know what kind of a prevailing religious climate there was) while committing clear contradiction to their cannon, is interesting. The bible it self says that "faith without deeds is dead" and a faith with doing deeds in the exact opposite (Murdering people) of what they profess is the "deadest" faith I know. So, do you mean they were christian in the sense that 400 years ago rulers imposed their beliefs on the uneducated and they "adopted" it (until this tenuous thing was blasted by the elitist view of marx/nietzsche) or do you mean they were "truly" christians who allowed themselves to be misled by a dictator who pandered to their faith mongering belief system by demonizing their enemy (the old crusades attack)? I contend that the nazi's ideals seem to coincide more with social darwinism (eugenics, aryan race) than a biblical world (btw, one of my degrees is a german major, so I can get in to some specifics if you would like! I really enjoy German history). So, could you clarify that statement for me please?