Moral relativity
 

Or E = Whatever the hell you want

Quick question (and yes this is a trap)

Re: Moral relativity
 

I'll go with no.

Re: Moral relativity
 

i'll go for no too. And that is because most (not all) christian systems are strongly biased in favor of a tyrannical approach to life.

Re: Moral relativity
 

Moral relativity is academic dogma. Good luck bucking a propaganda trend of that magnitude.

As foundational operating principles go, this one is the ultimate poison for western society as currently configured.

Re: Moral relativity
 

If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if there isn't one?

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if there isn't one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding ding.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are multiple overlapping objective external standards which are to some extent weighed subjectively. There isn't just one.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not.

[/ QUOTE ] I chose no, but I never claimed I could tell if a system is morally valid or not. The only things I have to build my standard on is reason, logic and at the core the feelings about morality I have as a human being. When I chose no, it was because I think these feelings are not completely determined by culture.

Re: Moral relativity
 

Don't you have to define "system of morality" for us here? If you define "system of morality" as "what you believe is right and wrong", then I do in fact think that they are all equally "valid". If you define "system of morality" as "what you believe you have the right to do to others on the basis of what you believe is right and wrong" then I do not think they are all equally "valid". This distinction is, I think, the most powerful and compelling argument that anarchists on this board make regularly.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if there isn't one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then morality is subjective.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not.

[/ QUOTE ] I chose no, but I never claimed I could tell if a system is morally valid or not. The only things I have to build my standard on is reason, logic and at the core the feelings about morality I have as a human being. When I chose no, it was because I think these feelings are not completely determined by culture.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you can't tell what makes moral systems valid or invalid how can you possibly claim that you can tell that some are valid and some are not?

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are multiple overlapping objective external standards which are to some extent weighed subjectively. There isn't just one.

[/ QUOTE ]

what are they?

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if there isn't one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then morality is subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question was "Are all systems of morality equally valid?" not are they all subjective.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you have to define "system of morality" for us here? If you define "system of morality" as "what you believe is right and wrong", then I do in fact think that they are all equally "valid". If you define "system of morality" as "what you believe you have the right to do to others on the basis of what you believe is right and wrong" then I do not think they are all equally "valid". This distinction is, I think, the most powerful and compelling argument that anarchists on this board make regularly.

[/ QUOTE ]

A system of morality is like a scientific theory. In science you put forward a theory and it is validated or not based on the evidence of the senses combined with the scientific method. That is the objective external standard which means that not all scientific theories are equally valid. It's not up to you if the world is round or not. I'm asking is it up to you if stealing is good or not or is there and objective external standard like the scientific method for judging conflicting moral theories?

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if there isn't one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then morality is subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question was "Are all systems of morality equally valid?" not are they all subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

One implies the other.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The question was "Are all systems of morality equally valid?" not are they all subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

One implies the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that true? It depends what you mean by valid, I guess. If you take valid to mean objectively provable, then you are, of course, right. But is that what it means for a moral theory to be valid? I don't know that it is.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't you have to define "system of morality" for us here? If you define "system of morality" as "what you believe is right and wrong", then I do in fact think that they are all equally "valid". If you define "system of morality" as "what you believe you have the right to do to others on the basis of what you believe is right and wrong" then I do not think they are all equally "valid". This distinction is, I think, the most powerful and compelling argument that anarchists on this board make regularly.

[/ QUOTE ]

A system of morality is like a scientific theory. In science you put forward a theory and it is validated or not based on the evidence of the senses combined with the scientific method. That is the objective external standard which means that not all scientific theories are equally valid. It's not up to you if the world is round or not. I'm asking is it up to you if stealing is good or not or is there an objective external standard like the scientific method for judging conflicting moral theories?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for clarifying.

I think that one can form an opinion of what characteristics a "system of morality" should have, and if those characteristics are objectively determinable then that would form an objective measure of moralities. Then, to the extent that a group of people agree to the standard they can then agree to the validity of a system of morality. Of course, the objective standard will not be an absolute - some people will disagree.

For what it's worth, some people disagree with the scientific method as well. For example, where the scientific method creates results that conflict with the Bible. So even there, you are talking about a subjectively determined objective standard.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm asking is it up to you if stealing is good or not or is there and objective external standard like the scientific method for judging conflicting moral theories?

[/ QUOTE ]

you should have just said this initially instead of proposing the question in the manner you did in the poll (even though you said it was a trap).

there is no "objective external method" what is your point?

edit: beyond the obvious

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not.

[/ QUOTE ] I chose no, but I never claimed I could tell if a system is morally valid or not. The only things I have to build my standard on is reason, logic and at the core the feelings about morality I have as a human being. When I chose no, it was because I think these feelings are not completely determined by culture.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you can't tell what makes moral systems valid or invalid how can you possibly claim that you can tell that some are valid and some are not?

[/ QUOTE ] I don't claim that. It's just a belief of mine that some are valid and some are not. If you had included "I don't know" in the poll, that's what I would have chosen.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

The “Golden Rule” wouldn’t be considered objective. So I’ll rephrase it:

If everyone can do it (without force), at no-one’s expense (with consent); it is morally correct.

Murder, rape, stealing, lying (outside of self defense), slavery, they don’t meet the above criteria. [censored]-sexuality, premarital sex, does… I’m sure they’re plenty of things that at first glance appear to pass, so let the flaming begin.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
If everyone can do it (without force), at no-one’s expense (with consent); it is morally correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not objective. The "expense" to others of your action is totally subjective.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't you have to define "system of morality" for us here? If you define "system of morality" as "what you believe is right and wrong", then I do in fact think that they are all equally "valid". If you define "system of morality" as "what you believe you have the right to do to others on the basis of what you believe is right and wrong" then I do not think they are all equally "valid". This distinction is, I think, the most powerful and compelling argument that anarchists on this board make regularly.

[/ QUOTE ]

A system of morality is like a scientific theory. In science you put forward a theory and it is validated or not based on the evidence of the senses combined with the scientific method. That is the objective external standard which means that not all scientific theories are equally valid. It's not up to you if the world is round or not. I'm asking is it up to you if stealing is good or not or is there an objective external standard like the scientific method for judging conflicting moral theories?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for clarifying.

I think that one can form an opinion of what characteristics a "system of morality" should have, and if those characteristics are objectively determinable then that would form an objective measure of moralities. Then, to the extent that a group of people agree to the standard they can then agree to the validity of a system of morality. Of course, the objective standard will not be an absolute - some people will disagree.

For what it's worth, some people disagree with the scientific method as well. For example, where the scientific method creates results that conflict with the Bible. So even there, you are talking about a subjectively determined objective standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't disagree with the scientific method they just think that non sense (in both meanings of the term) evidence trumps sense evidence. In fact they don't even believe that because when they want to go to work they don't just sit it the car and pray for it to take them they use previously observed sense evidence to conclude that the theory that turning the ignition key and pressing on the gas pedal is most likely to get them to work.

You can't make arguments to try and convince someone that arguing isn't objectively the best way to convince people of something or use english to try and communicate to me that using a language that someone else understands isn't objectively the best way to communicate with them.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
i'll go for no too. And that is because most (not all) christian systems are strongly biased in favor of a tyrannical approach to life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove objectively that tyranny is worse than a lack of tyranny. I'd be interested in hearing you do it in a way that (when consistently applied) doesn't make you an ACist.

Re: Moral relativity
 

nietzreznor is one of the more competent/wily supporters of moral realism/objectivism that I've encountered (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1)
although I still have no idea how he'd go about supporting any 'objective moral fact' in any sort of convincing manner.

Re: Moral relativity
 

Morals are defined by the society you live in. There is no absolute standard that they follow. Most have developed in a particular society to be beneficial for the common good. When one society's morals differ enough from another's, war sometimes breaks out.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]

Morals are defined by the society you live in. There is no absolute standard that they follow. Most have developed in a particular society to be beneficial for the common good. When one society's morals differ enough from another's, war sometimes breaks out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are your personal morals any better or worse than my personal morals? To be able to say yes you have to give reference to an external method of verification I don't accept "because I say so".

Re: Moral relativity
 

I think a lot of people confuse thinking "hey I'm open minded and tolerant of others" to mean that they think morality is all subjective. But then, isn't "being open minded and tolerant of others" a worthwhile moral principle? It's really that simple, imo.

"Everyone has different preferences," therefore your philosophy can not be looked at as being objectively good. Well, if my philosophy can be demonstrated to be the most tolerant of the fact that everyone has different preferences, then doesn't that become (for all intents and purposes other than maintaining an argument on the internet) "objectively" better than ones that don't.

When you phrase the question this way (referring to OP), it's clear everyone agrees that not every moral view is a worthy one just because someone holds it. Unless you answered "yes" here, you really should do away with entering the "but ultimately it's all subjective" into any of your arguments.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Morals are defined by the society you live in. There is no absolute standard that they follow. Most have developed in a particular society to be beneficial for the common good. When one society's morals differ enough from another's, war sometimes breaks out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are your personal morals any better or worse than my personal morals? To be able to say yes you have to give reference to an external method of verification I don't accept "because I say so".

[/ QUOTE ]

If my morals are better for the society that I live in to peacefully coexist than yours then the answer is yes. Society decides. If your morals allow for murder and mine don't, then I suspect mine would be deemed better than yours by the rest of the society.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Morals are defined by the society you live in. There is no absolute standard that they follow. Most have developed in a particular society to be beneficial for the common good. When one society's morals differ enough from another's, war sometimes breaks out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are your personal morals any better or worse than my personal morals? To be able to say yes you have to give reference to an external method of verification I don't accept "because I say so".

[/ QUOTE ]

If my morals are better for the society that I live in to peacefully coexist than yours then the answer is yes. Society decides. If your morals allow for murder and mine don't, then I suspect mine would be deemed better than yours by the rest of the society.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your objective external standard is "society"? Like if you add up lots of little subjectivities it becomes objective? I'm not saying I disagree because I'm genuinely trying to clarify my own position here (I've got some agenda with the question but not completely) How do you define society? I assume it's not a 51% majority or anything like that.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]

Morals are defined by the society you live in. There is no absolute standard that they follow. Most have developed in a particular society to be beneficial for the common good. When one society's morals differ enough from another's, war sometimes breaks out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Add "All" as the first word for emphasis, and QFT.

The problem with the OP is that the answer can really never be "yes", even though I voted yes. The gotcha on the yes side is that a "valid moral system" that lives within and depends on a society that has a different "valid moral system" is rendered invalid by that dependency.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Morals are defined by the society you live in. There is no absolute standard that they follow. Most have developed in a particular society to be beneficial for the common good. When one society's morals differ enough from another's, war sometimes breaks out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are your personal morals any better or worse than my personal morals? To be able to say yes you have to give reference to an external method of verification I don't accept "because I say so".

[/ QUOTE ]

If my morals are better for the society that I live in to peacefully coexist than yours then the answer is yes. Society decides. If your morals allow for murder and mine don't, then I suspect mine would be deemed better than yours by the rest of the society.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your objective external standard is "society"? Like if you add up lots of little subjectivities it becomes objective? I'm not saying I disagree because I'm genuinely trying to clarify my own position here (I've got some agenda with the question but not completely) How do you define society? I assume it's not a 51% majority or anything like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't confuse society with form of government. Many different societies exist. The definition of society can be found easily online and I agree with the most common definitions. Societies have evolved many forms of governments in order to have their moral value system followed. In some societies 51% can force their views on others, in others they may not be able to do that if it violates someone rights. In others, it is more pragmatic.

Re: Moral relativity
 

Answer is pretty clearly "yes" (though the question could use some more specificity). Even if there is an objectively and exclusively correct morality (which seems very unlikely), there's no way for us to discover it, so for all intents and purposes the answer would still be "yes."

That said, some moral systems may contain more or fewer logical contradictions, which would make them more or less "valid." I don't think that's what the OP meant to ask about, however.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
Morals are defined by the society you live in. There is no absolute standard that they follow. Most have developed in a particular society to be beneficial for the common good. When one society's morals differ enough from another's, war sometimes breaks out.


[/ QUOTE ]

Scientific truth is often defined by the society that you live, this doesnt mean that this is an objective method of determining the validity of truth.

There are moral theories that can be shown to be objectively false. Moral theories that are internally inconsistant can be immediately discarded as false. It follows that a form of the scientific method can be used to determine true moral theories. We falsify the ones that are objectively falsifiable and must therefore conclude that those that are left over are objectively true.

So often the moral truths as defined by society dont meet the requirement of internal consistancy. Its ok for us to do certain things but other groups of people arent allowed the same action. Its ok cause we are the good guys is such a common inconsistant arguement.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
How do you define society? I assume it's not a 51% majority or anything like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you did decide something is moral if 51%+ of people agree, that's an objective standard.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
Answer is pretty clearly "yes" (though the question could use some more specificity). Even if there is an objectively and exclusively correct morality (which seems very unlikely), there's no way for us to discover it, so for all intents and purposes the answer would still be "yes."

That said, some moral systems may contain more or fewer logical contradictions, which would make them more or less "valid." I don't think that's what the OP meant to ask about, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok so my moral system is both internally and externally consistent (excluding fringe grey area nonsense) is your moral system objectivly better than mine? If so then you must have some way of proving it. If not, and here is the trap for the yes voters, then you must be an ACist. My morality (which I believe is objective) says taxation is wrong. You lose nothing if you switch to my morality (as all morality is equal) so logically you must switch to my morality. Right. If everything is subjective you might as well become an objectivist because it makes no difference and will save a whole bunch of hassle.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
If not, and here is the trap for the yes voters, then you must be an ACist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus [censored] Christ. Are you serious?

[ QUOTE ]
My morality (which I believe is objective) says taxation is wrong. You lose nothing if you switch to my morality (as all morality is equal) so logically you must switch to my morality. Right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. I lose the morality that I prefer, the one that seems best to me given my (ultimately arbitrary) standards, and the one that gives me the most satisfaction. This is really obvious.

Re: Moral relativity
 

Sorry for the outburst. I don't know exactly why your post annoyed me, but it did.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If not, and here is the trap for the yes voters, then you must be an ACist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus [censored] Christ. Are you serious?

[ QUOTE ]
My morality (which I believe is objective) says taxation is wrong. You lose nothing if you switch to my morality (as all morality is equal) so logically you must switch to my morality. Right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. I lose the morality that I prefer, the one that seems best to me given my (ultimately arbitrary) standards, and the one that gives me the most satisfaction. This is really obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your morality is objectively better than mine and your objective standard is "whatever gives me (you) the most satisfaction".

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry for the outburst. I don't know exactly why your post annoyed me, but it did.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an interesting response. Morality is the most explosive of any topic of conversation.