Moral Relativists

[Soeldner]

Dude, you ASKED!

Yes, but if he really believes in what he is professing, then there is no intrinsic worth in it and thus, no reason to argue it. It's a lovely catch 22.

 

[Storm]

Yes, but if he really believes in what he is professing, then there is no intrinsic worth in it and thus, no reason to argue it. It's a lovely catch 22.

Of your own manufacturing. If your going to ask the questions, don't whine when people answer. It just looks like you can't address their points honestly.

 

[Soeldner]

Name the philosophy I have put forth. Because, frankly, I have put forth no philosophy at all.

I merely challenged the concept of objective morality by posing a question which no one has answered.

Then I supplied a more commonly accepted definition of the term society.

Instead of haranguing me with irrelevant questions how about you actually make an attempt to answer the question I put forth regarding cultural relativism. Once again posted here for your ease:

One culture holds female circumcision to be a long held traditional and part of their moral value. Another culture calls it female genital mutilation and imprisons people who practice it.

Which one is moral? Why? What does god have to do with it? Which god?

I have yet to put forth any philosophy.

So don't hide. Answer the questions.

Answering your question from my standpoint is simple. If there is a definitive right and wrong, then even if some one is taught some thing is good even when it isn't, for instance slavery, they may follow it because of their instilled "values." However, people are capable of seeing the truth and hypocrisy of their own systems and are able to weed those incorrect values out of their lives, like with the abolition of slavery. The North were Americans, just like the south. Their economy just didn't depend on their slaves and thus, their greed did not blind them to the obvious hypocrisy of their constitutions declaration of "self-evident truths" coupled with slavery.

Furthermore, as you are referencing a, generally, Muslim action, I suppose we can talk briefly about the Quran (though this is no what I intended with this forum).I have trouble with the quran on multiple accounts. One, the main "prophet" received immediate self gain and reward, so his credibility is diminished in my eyes. It is blatantly misogynistic and conflicting over many points, which if you want, we can have an aside and talk about them, and any supposed conflicting biblical parallels you think you have.

So, finally, yes, people can be taught otherwise, but it doesn't mean it's right. Many have overcome their incorrect morals.

Oh, and God is part of it, as he is the foundation of all morality and existence. Naturally, I think the God, in which I believe, is the God who sets the foundation.

 

[Soeldner]

Of your own manufacturing. If your going to ask the questions, don't whine when people answer. It just looks like you can't address their points honestly.

Undeniably. I'm not whining, I'm pointing out an obvious flaw in the very foundation of their reasoning. Is that not the purpose of these boards? To get to the "truth" if there is one? You seem to be getting a little emotional about this... what's exactly wrong with this opinion/argument?

 

[Storm]

Undeniably. I'm not whining, I'm pointing out an obvious flaw in the very foundation of their reasoning. Is that not the purpose of these boards? To get to the "truth" if there is one? You seem to be getting a little emotional about this... what's exactly wrong with this opinion/argument?

Perhaps I read more into the relevant posts than I should, and if so, I apologize. That said, it really did sound like you were trying to tell him he had no right to voice his opinion, which is a pet peeve of mine.

 

[Soeldner]

Perhaps I read more into the relevant posts than I should, and if so, I apologize. That said, it really did sound like you were trying to tell him he had no right to voice his opinion, which is a pet peeve of mine.

Ah, I see. Yeah, that would be frustrating!

I was more trying to attack the philosophy from a different angle.

 

[Storm]

My sincerest apologies, then.

 

[gnomon]

Answering your question from my standpoint is simple. If there is a definitive right and wrong, then even if some one is taught some thing is good even when it isn't, for instance slavery, they may follow it because of their instilled "values." However, people are capable of seeing the truth and hypocrisy of their own systems and are able to weed those incorrect values out of their lives, like with the abolition of slavery. The North were Americans, just like the south. Their economy just didn't depend on their slaves and thus, their greed did not blind them to the obvious hypocrisy of their constitutions declaration of "self-evident truths" coupled with slavery.

Furthermore, as you are referencing a, generally, Muslim action, I suppose we can talk briefly about the Quran (though this is no what I intended with this forum).I have trouble with the quran on multiple accounts. One, the main "prophet" received immediate self gain and reward, so his credibility is diminished in my eyes. It is blatantly misogynistic and conflicting over many points, which if you want, we can have an aside and talk about them, and any supposed conflicting biblical parallels you think you have.

So, finally, yes, people can be taught otherwise, but it doesn't mean it's right. Many have overcome their incorrect morals.

Oh, and God is part of it, as he is the foundation of all morality and existence. Naturally, I think the God, in which I believe, is the God who sets the foundation.

Female circumcision is not a Muslim action. It predates Islam, is not commanded by the Quran and not practiced by the majority of Muslims.

I repeat the question and now ask others to make an honest attempt.
One culture holds female circumcision to be a long held traditional and part of their moral value. Another culture calls it female genital mutilation and imprisons people who practice it.

Which one is moral? Why? What does god have to do with it? Which god?

It's a fairly simple question. Let's hope others don't take it as an opportunity to simply disparage an opposing belief system.

 

[Soeldner]

Female circumcision is not a Muslim action. It predates Islam, is not commanded by the Quran and not practiced by the majority of Muslims.

I repeat the question and now ask others to make an honest attempt.
One culture holds female circumcision to be a long held traditional and part of their moral value. Another culture calls it female genital mutilation and imprisons people who practice it.

Which one is moral? Why? What does god have to do with it? Which god?

It's a fairly simple question. Let's hope others don't take it as an opportunity to simply disparage an opposing belief system.

Disparage? I didn't belittle, I just think it is incorrect. If that were belittling, than every thing you say is wrong, is belittling as well. I was giving my reasons, nothing more. I don't think they are "stupid" or "lesser" if they can not get out side of their system. I think it actually takes some thing divine for some thing so complex to happen.

I'm sorry my answer didn't please you.

Also, you did give a stance. You tied morality to ethnic and societal influences as well and said that reason has nothing to do with it. That seems like a fairly clear stance to me...

 

[Soeldner]

Female circumcision is not a Muslim action. It predates Islam, is not commanded by the Quran and not practiced by the majority of Muslims.

I repeat the question and now ask others to make an honest attempt.
One culture holds female circumcision to be a long held traditional and part of their moral value. Another culture calls it female genital mutilation and imprisons people who practice it.

Which one is moral? Why? What does god have to do with it? Which god?

It's a fairly simple question. Let's hope others don't take it as an opportunity to simply disparage an opposing belief system.

Also, I said "generally" when referencing muslims with female circumcision, as the majority of religious discussions I have had, tend in that direction.
I realize other countries have practiced it. It was constantly brought up by a Persian professor I had back in college. Believe me, I know its intricacies.

 

[tumbleweed41]

One culture holds female circumcision to be a long held traditional and part of their moral value. Another culture calls it female genital mutilation and imprisons people who practice it.

Which one is moral? Why? What does god have to do with it? Which god?

The practice is "moral" to the culture that practices it, but "immoral" to those outside the culture who see it a needless mutilation.

The culture that practices it sees it as a necessary method of preserving a male dominated society.

Those of us on the outside see this as degrading, unnecessary, and inhumane.

Should we then tolerate the practice, since it is "moral" to those that do it? No, I do not believe so. Since we can see no practical reason for this mutilation, we are obliged by our own cultural morality to work to put an end to it.

 

[gnomon]

Disparage? I didn't belittle, I just think it is incorrect. If that were belittling, than every thing you say is wrong, is belittling as well. I was giving my reasons, nothing more. I don't think they are "stupid" or "lesser" if they can not get out side of their system. I think it actually takes some thing divine for some thing so complex to happen.

I'm sorry my answer didn't please you.

Also, you did give a stance. You tied morality to ethnic and societal influences as well and said that reason has nothing to do with it. That seems like a fairly clear stance to me...

It's not a stance. It's an observation.

An observation that thousands of different human cultures, or rather, societies have developed moral systems that are not the same in every aspect. This is an observation made by every sociologist and anthropologist on the planet. Moral universalists are left taking a position that all but one of them, which one the universalist belongs to, is wrong.

In the face of so called universal absolutes, or what people usually refer to common moral values among different cultures, do not account for the different moral values between cultures and changing moral values within cultures. The assertion of moral universalism in the face of these observations is not a rational position.

What it is not is a philosophical position.

I repeat. Can someone actually answer this question. I don't care if one is a moral absolutist or a moral relativist. That's not the point of the question.
One culture holds female circumcision to be a long held traditional and part of their moral value. Another culture calls it female genital mutilation and imprisons people who practice it.

Which one is moral? Why? What does god have to do with it? Which god?

The question challenges our notions of idealism. One can devise many questions along this line to challenge idealistic notions.

Let's take a less extreme question.

Eating dogs. Eating dog meat in the West is taboo. Eating dog meat in other parts of world, notably parts of Asia, is not. In China dogs have been raised specifically for meat for quite a long time. There are groups from the West who protest such an action.

Question:
Are those who protest from the West against the raising and consumption of dog meat right or wrong from a moral universalist perspective? What of a Chinese universalist protesting the practice from within their own culture? Does being part of that culture give more weight to an individuals opinion regarding the universal right or wrongness of a particular action.

While the dog meat example may not be the best because there is growing pressure not only from the outside but mainly inside China to do away with a particular practice that was not particularly widespread.

Of course, that leads to the next ethical question from a moral universalist point of view. Context. Eating dog meat within a culture that would normally not engage in the practice and find it abhorrent to do so does happen in a time of crisis. Namely a hunger crisis. If something is immoral to do in a time of plenty is it still immoral in a time of scarcity? If a moral universalist does not give the same answer for both situations are they not in actuality being a moral relativist?

 

[gnomon]

The practice is "moral" to the culture that practices it, but "immoral" to those outside the culture who see it a needless mutilation.

The culture that practices it sees it as a necessary method of preserving a male dominated society.

Those of us on the outside see this as degrading, unnecessary, and inhumane.

Should we then tolerate the practice, since it is "moral" to those that do it? No, I do not believe so. Since we can see no practical reason for this mutilation, we are obliged by our own cultural morality to work to put an end to it.

Thank you.

 

[Soeldner]

It's not a stance. It's an observation.

An observation that is surrounded by assumptions, which makes it a stance. You can not definitively say morality is not rational. There may be some observations that correlate to this, but lack of rationality is not necessarily the causality. Therefore that is a claim, not an observation.

An observation that thousands of different human cultures, or rather, societies have developed moral systems that are not the same in every aspect. This is an observation made by every sociologist and anthropologist on the planet. Moral universalists are left taking a position that all but one of them, which one the universalist belongs to, is wrong.

Wow, now that is a bold claim. I disagree with this fundamentally. You've learned every single culture? That's amazing. Also, every single anthropologist on the planet? When I get home, I'll go ahead and get one of my resources I've been reading and prove that incorrect

In the face of so called universal absolutes, or what people usually refer to common moral values among different cultures, do not account for the different moral values between cultures and changing moral values within cultures. The assertion of moral universalism in the face of these observations is not a rational position.

What it is not is a philosophical position.

I disagree. I believe it is a philosophical question. Some one's beliefs are not the same thing as the definite system of right and wrong. Peoples understanding and beliefs can be skewed by the society they live in, but just because there are differing opinions based on culture does not destroy the validity of absolutism. Truth exists outside of culture even if that culture skews that individual's beliefs/the truth.

If there were no rational ground for absolutism, then there wouldn't be ongoing debates. In fact, the majority of the "founding fathers of philosophy", upon which the majority of philosphers base their propositions (including the modernists that have shaped your understanding), claimed philosophy is needed in order to help those to distinguish what is correct from what is wrong. I find it hard to believe that any thing is so "obvious."

I repeat. Can someone actually answer this question. I don't care if one is a moral absolutist or a moral relativist. That's not the point of the question.
One culture holds female circumcision to be a long held traditional and part of their moral value. Another culture calls it female genital mutilation and imprisons people who practice it.

Which one is moral? Why? What does god have to do with it? Which god?

The question challenges our notions of idealism. One can devise many questions along this line to challenge idealistic notions.

Let's take a less extreme question.

Eating dogs. Eating dog meat in the West is taboo. Eating dog meat in other parts of world, notably parts of Asia, is not. In China dogs have been raised specifically for meat for quite a long time. There are groups from the West who protest such an action.

Question:
Are those who protest from the West against the raising and consumption of dog meat right or wrong from a moral universalist perspective? What of a Chinese universalist protesting the practice from within their own culture? Does being part of that culture give more weight to an individuals opinion regarding the universal right or wrongness of a particular action.

While the dog meat example may not be the best because there is growing pressure not only from the outside but mainly inside China to do away with a particular practice that was not particularly widespread.

Of course, that leads to the next ethical question from a moral universalist point of view. Context. Eating dog meat within a culture that would normally not engage in the practice and find it abhorrent to do so does happen in a time of crisis. Namely a hunger crisis. If something is immoral to do in a time of plenty is it still immoral in a time of scarcity? If a moral universalist does not give the same answer for both situations are they not in actuality being a moral relativist?

As stated, skewed belief is outside of the true moral framework. Just because some beliefs are not correct, does not invalidate the framework itself. Emotions are not necessarily guide lines to right or wrong. A sociopath feels no remorse, it doesn't mean that morality no longer exists. It's not dependent upon the individual.

 

[tumbleweed41]

. A sociopath feels no remorse, it doesn't mean that morality no longer exists. It's not dependent upon the individual.

Correct, morality is not dependent on the individual. It is dependent on the society that the individual belongs to.

 

[Soeldner]

Correct, morality is not dependent on the individual. It is dependent on the society that the individual belongs to.

IMO, also out side of community. It is a foundation in itself.

 

[tumbleweed41]

IMO, also out side of community. It is a foundation in itself.

Foundation based upon what?

 

[CarlinKnew]

Alright, let me ask you this. Why do you feel it necessary to tell us about relativism? Do you think it a good thing for us to know the truth?
It seems, to me any ways, the very fact that you are trying to convey any thing is counter to your philosophy, because it means you see "benefit" or good in its end result. Or else, why do defend this position so indomitably?

I only discuss it because it's interesting.

 

[Soeldner]

Foundation based upon what?

One of the basic foundations. The "self evident" things to those who explore deeply (not exactly self evident to those who swallow their cultural beliefs). If you want to get very metaphysical, God's nature. Any thing "evil' is counter to God's nature.

 

[Storm]

One of the basic foundations. The "self evident" things to those who explore deeply (not exactly self evident to those who swallow their cultural beliefs). If you want to get very metaphysical, God's nature. Any thing "evil' is counter to God's nature.

While there are numerous hypotheses, God's nature is unknown.