Moral relativity

[bocablkr]

[ 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.

[VarlosZ]

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.

[tomdemaine]

[ 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.

[VarlosZ]

[ 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.

[VarlosZ]

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

[tomdemaine]

[ 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.

[tomdemaine]

[ 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".

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

No. My morality is subjectively better; i.e., it is preferred by me.

[ QUOTE ]
. . . and your objective standard is "whatever gives me (you) the most satisfaction".

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. My subjective standard is "whatever creates the most overall utility."

As a self-interested actor, I lose a great deal by sublimating my morality to yours. I go around thinking that I'm causing harm all the time and calling it justified: misery ensues. And since I think that I'm causing harm, there's nothing to counterbalance my misery -- in fact, the harm I'm doing to others only adds to the negative side of the ledger, and at the realization of that, my own misery grows even stronger.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
No. My morality is subjectively better; i.e., it is preferred by me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then morality doesnt exist. If morality is just subjective preference and your subjective preference is no more valid than anyone elses, then there can be no theories of how humans should interact with one another since you are saying everyone's moral action should be what ever they prefer.

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely not. My subjective standard is "whatever creates the most overall utility."


[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying this is what people should do, but if your standard is subjective there is no reason for them to do it. So either stop claiming morality is subjective or stop making moral claims. To state morality is subjective and then say people should do what you say is pretty irrational.