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

[Desert Snake]

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.

Cultural norms=/=morality

There are certain foods that I will not partake of, but are commonly sold in American restaurants. Even though, FOR ME, I would be going against my personal ethics, I am not outside restaurants picketing them. This is a very basic recognition of moral subjectivity.

 

[Jumi]

Maybe we do not understand it correctly now, it certainly does show that the strong dominate the weak.

That's what has always happened, those with power have always dominated those who have had less.

Regardless, your standards did not include evolution they included an intent to make benefit mankind.

Just trying to make lebensraum for his ideal type of German would not have benefited mankind. Just what he had selected as his absolute ideal.

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.

From a social darwinist viewpoint he was also sacrificing the most capable and his idea of selection based on racial purity was pure nonsense that has nothing to do with evolution.

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.

Much like transvestites are still sterilized in many countries, so they wouldn't spread their genes.

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

I would find it hard to argue anything from an absolute viewpoint, since I'd have to decide what the absolute viewpoint would be. Would it be the absolute of Hitler or someone else?

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.

Well he didn't understand evolution, so it doesn't matter if he thought he was helping evolution along or not. I don't think he placed as much import on evolution as many Christian apologists think. Have you read Mein Kampf?

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.

I don't consider him an "evolutionist" at all. It seems like creating a strawman of evolution by identifying it with the Nazis who had pseudoscientific ideas. They believed in absolutes in their way that probably conflicts with your absolutes.

What are your absolute values and what are they based on?

 

[Ouroboros]

Many of those factors change randomly

Not really. People are involved. It's affected by people's opinions and views. There's no die rolled and everyone suddenly accept a new idea because the D20 was over 15.

and often without apparent reason unless you believe in some kind of determinism.

We are the ones who determine, together we change views based on discussions and views presented in media, online, community, etc.

It's not random. It's not deterministic either. It's something in between.

Radical shifts in morality have occured all the time and without warning--pretty much whimsically.

Like what? Let's look at an example.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@serp777: Out of curiosity, would you claim evolution to be 'seemingly random' and, therefore, whimsical?

 

[Ouroboros]

Cultural norms=/=morality

Morality is most definitely influenced by cultural views, norms, values, mores, etc.

There are certain foods that I will not partake of,

Why? Religious view? Or is it because you subjectively have decided that those certain foods are immoral to eat, but only to you? Or is this something that you have been accepting from a certain culture that you belong to?

The thing here is that with "culture" I don't mean just the global, overall 100% common everyone culture that we all share. I'm also referring to sub-cultures. A sub-culture can be just a church or even a neighborhood or family. It exists on all levels where human interaction is involved.

but are commonly sold in American restaurants. Even though, FOR ME, I would be going against my personal ethics, I am not outside restaurants picketing them. This is a very basic recognition of moral subjectivity.

So you have these personal subjective ethics that you just came up with yourself? You basically sat down and said, "It's now immoral to eat pancakes to me. That's my personal ethics that I just invented and I have to follow." Or did this personal ethics come from somewhere else, like a church, religion, opinion, scientific fact, or such?

 

[Desert Snake]

Morality is most definitely influenced by cultural views, norms, values, mores, etc.

Why? Religious view? Or is it because you subjectively have decided that those certain foods are immoral to eat, but only to you? Or is this something that you have been accepting from a certain culture that you belong to?

Both. Or, all three. There are some foods that I have never had. There are one or two that I have had, perhaps, twice.

The thing here is that with "culture" I don't mean just the global, overall 100% common everyone culture that we all share. I'm also referring to sub-cultures. A sub-culture can be just a church or even a neighborhood or family. It exists on all levels where human interaction is involved.

Hence making it subjective, by default. It doesn't matter whether it's culturally subjective, or personally subjective, it's still subjective.

So you have these personal subjective ethics that you just came up with yourself? You basically sat down and said, "It's now immoral to eat pancakes to me. That's my personal ethics that I just invented and I have to follow." Or did this personal ethics come from somewhere else, like a church, religion, opinion, scientific fact, or such?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think that morality is relative no matter how you look at it, so "right" and "wrong" in this context are merely just words. Here's an example:
Everyone pretty much would agree that killing mass amounts of human beings is "wrong", right?

Stalin, Mao, Il Sung, Hitler killed masses of humanity for their relative 'greater good' morality- unhindered by personal Christian ones. Romans killed mass amounts for mere entertainment- so absolutely not, unfortunately.

You really think the world would be better without humans?! I don't think any perspective justifies that- but we're here to disagree I guess!

 

[Ouroboros]

Both. Or, all three. There are some foods that I have never had. There are one or two that I have had, perhaps, twice.

Hence making it subjective, by default. It doesn't matter whether it's culturally subjective, or personally subjective, it's still subjective.

It is, and it isn't.

Everything we think, feel, need, believe, know, etc is ultimately subjective, but our morals in majority do come from groups and people around us, in particular our parents, family, coworkers, and so on. People who are close to us in one way or another. That's what you build your subjective view of what is appropriate to do. Morals is about our interaction with people around us. If you build your morals completely from your own subjective wishful thinking, people around you will correct you or reject you. Through positive and negative reinforcements, you will either adjust or reject in return. You can keep your homemade morals, but people around you won't accept them as such if they don't fit.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Wouldn't that depend on the God you believed in?

Being an atheist, I don't really have a position on that. Which leaves me in support of moral nihilism.

 

[Desert Snake]

It is, and it isn't.

Everything we think, feel, need, believe, know, etc is ultimately subjective, but our morals in majority do come from groups and people around us, in particular our parents, family, coworkers, and so on. People who are close to us in one way or another. That's what you build your subjective view of what is appropriate to do. Morals is about our interaction with people around us. If you build your morals completely from your own subjective wishful thinking, people around you will correct you or reject you. Through positive and negative reinforcements, you will either adjust or reject in return. You can keep your homemade morals, but people around you won't accept them as such if they don't fit.

Huh? There are certain foods that I have never had, this is a cultural and religious ethics thing. There are a couple others that are personal. You don't seem to be reading my answers.

 

[Nakosis]

It is, and it isn't.

Everything we think, feel, need, believe, know, etc is ultimately subjective, but our morals in majority do come from groups and people around us, in particular our parents, family, coworkers, and so on. People who are close to us in one way or another. That's what you build your subjective view of what is appropriate to do. Morals is about our interaction with people around us. If you build your morals completely from your own subjective wishful thinking, people around you will correct you or reject you. Through positive and negative reinforcements, you will either adjust or reject in return. You can keep your homemade morals, but people around you won't accept them as such if they don't fit.

This is just peer pressure. Some give into it some don't. Which makes it still relative to individual personality. And usually just an alpha personality which sets his personal morals for the group. Someone building it from their own subjective wishful thinking and coercing it onto others. So either it's your own homemade morals or someone else forcing their homemade morality on you.

 

[1robin]

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.

Ok, as I advised a student recently lets define some terms.

There are two very different things called "morality". It is best to define them upfront.

1. Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

This one should be called morality and does not change with people, time, or geography because they are not created by any of them. The one exception is how they may be applied to each but I will save that for a later discussion. The above is what I and most associate with the word morality.

2. Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself, or malum in se.

This one is often referred to as "morality", but since two mutually exclusive claims cannot be true at the same time one should be named something else. I would call this one ethics. This one does change by time, culture, and location. You may chose any word you wish for this type of "morality" but to avoid confusion it should be distinguished from the 1st definition.

Lastly, in Christianity things are not right and wrong because God says so. God's eternal nature is the moral standard. His commands merely reflect what his character dictates. However he wished to create creatures with freewill. Freewill is necessary for true love. A kiss from two lips on an iPod means nothing, from your spouse it does. We can either act consistently with God's nature or rebel and contradict him. There is no use for a Euthyphro type argument against Christianity, nor any false optimality claims. If God exists I should expect the exact type of world I find.

Now that things are a little clearer you may re-calibrate and fire away again.

 

[1robin]

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

Without any transcendent God we must instead become 6 billion subjective God's ourselves, which has produced 300 years of peace out of the 5000 in recorded history.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Without any transcendent God we must instead become 6 billion subjective God's ourselves, which has produced 300 years of peace out of the 5000 in recorded history.

I wouldn't call us gods but if we all had the same innate sense of objective morality one might assume that there would be more than 300 years of peace within the last 5000. And even those 300 years were only lacking large scale war and didn't count tribal wars or small conflicts between small armies.

 

[Augustus]

Like what? Let's look at an example.

Nazi Germany, Cultural revolution, Cambodia Pol Pot, ISIS, Munster Rebellion, Rwanda, etc. would be a start.

Add in almost any situation in which people's sense of security is quickly destroyed.

Morality can flip pretty much overnight and there is ample record of this.

Not really. People are involved. It's affected by people's opinions and views. There's no die rolled and everyone suddenly accept a new idea because the D20 was over 15.

After the fact we can look at things ad retrofit them with explanations, at the time they happen people are pretty much clueless and you get 20 different explanations of what is occurring.

You can predict that certain circumstances will cause a deterioration in morality, but you can't predict the exact effects.

If it can't be predicted in advance or explained at the time then saying it is not random/capricious/whimsical is a touch pedantic.

We are the ones who determine, together we change views based on discussions and views presented in media, online, community, etc.

It's not random. It's not deterministic either. It's something in between.

We consciously determine? We consciously change? Always? Really?

 

[Desert Snake]

It is, and it isn't.

Everything we think, feel, need, believe, know, etc is ultimately subjective, but our morals in majority do come from groups and people around us, in particular our parents, family, coworkers, and so on. People who are close to us in one way or another. That's what you build your subjective view of what is appropriate to do

.
Did I say otherwise?

Morals is about our interaction with people around us. If you build your morals completely from your own subjective wishful thinking,

Where did you get that from? I didn't say that this was from my ''wishful thinking''. What on earth...

people around you will correct you or reject you. Through positive and negative reinforcements, you will either adjust or reject in return. You can keep your homemade morals, but people around you won't accept them as such if they don't fit.

If you aren't going to be reading what I'm writing, why are you even responding?

 

[Ouroboros]

Huh? There are certain foods that I have never had, this is a cultural and religious ethics thing. There are a couple others that are personal. You don't seem to be reading my answers.

I think we lost each other. I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying either. So we can leave it at that.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is just peer pressure. Some give into it some don't. Which makes it still relative to individual personality. And usually just an alpha personality which sets his personal morals for the group. Someone building it from their own subjective wishful thinking and coercing it onto others. So either it's your own homemade morals or someone else forcing their homemade morality on you.

Perhaps this will say it better than I can:

Culture describes a collective way of life, or way of doing things. It is the sum of attitudes, values, goals, and practices shared by individuals in a group, organization, or society. Cultures vary over time periods, between countries and geographic regions, and among groups and organizations. Culture reflects the moral and ethical beliefs and standards that speak to how people should behave and interact with others.

Source: Boundless. “Culture and Ethics.” Boundless Management. Boundless, 10 Jun. 2015. Retrieved 12 Jun. 2015 from Culture and Ethics

 

[Desert Snake]

I think we lost each other. I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying either. So we can leave it at that.

What you were saying was not predicated on my comments, it wasn't relevant. But, sure, we can leave it at that.

 

[Nakosis]

Huh? There are certain foods that I have never had, this is a cultural and religious ethics thing. There are a couple others that are personal. You don't seem to be reading my answers.

Ah... I finally understand how food comes into this.

Yes, I see eating meat as immoral. No one else in my family has a problem with it. I don't see them eating meat as immoral. They don't have a problem with me being a vegetarian. We just accept we have individual morals and there's no peer pressure either way.

It's not cultural or religious. Just personal reasons.

I see giving into peer pressure as immoral. So whatever weirdness is mine, I own it.