Moral relativity

[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.

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I cut off your hand, your "expense" is subjective to me (you have another)? If I have sex with another man, your "expense" is subjective (0). The "expense" of my victim is not subjective (to me).

Subjective: taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment".

Your hand isn’t merely gone in your mind. Your [censored]-phobia exists entirely there.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I cut off your hand, your "expense" is subjective to me (you have another)? If I have sex with another man, your "expense" is subjective (0). The "expense" of my victim is not subjective (to me).

Subjective: taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment".

Your hand isn’t merely gone in your mind. Your [censored]-phobia exists entirely there.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point. The point is that if you want to to define something as "okay" if it has "no expense" to anyone else then you need a set of rules about what constitutes an "expense" and what does no. The determination of those rules with require subjective determinations.

[vulturesrow]

Tom,

Great topic, and I want to mull it over further before I jump in headfirst. That said, I would like to offer that the fundamental problem with moral relativism is that pretty much eliminates any basis for any type of normative judgement on behalf of competing moral systems (as you term it) and, more importantly, undermines the the proposition of moral relativism as the standard. I hope I didnt phrase that too awkwardly. I'll try to add more later.

[BCPVP]

[ 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 ]
[X] Christian bashing
[ ] America bashing

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Tom,

Great topic, and I want to mull it over further before I jump in headfirst. That said, I would like to offer that the fundamental problem with moral relativism is that pretty much eliminates any basis for any type of normative judgement on behalf of competing moral systems (as you term it) and, more importantly, undermines the the proposition of moral relativism as the standard. I hope I didnt phrase that too awkwardly. I'll try to add more later.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is pretty much right. If it good to be bad and bad to be good then what makes good good and bad bad?

The answer is to resort to platonic forms. We must discover and define the essence of good and the essence of bad. The rational inquiry into the meaning of good shows that good has subsets that include things like fairness. The term fairness, from a non-discriminatory Kantian universal inquiry, implies that only a rational defense, not an
emotional/personal defense, qualifies as just. This means all parties must be considered equal from the beginning and any adjustments require a rational analysis and justification. Whatever the justification this must apply universally.

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I cut off your hand, your "expense" is subjective to me (you have another)? If I have sex with another man, your "expense" is subjective (0). The "expense" of my victim is not subjective (to me).

Subjective: taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment".

Your hand isn’t merely gone in your mind. Your [censored]-phobia exists entirely there.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point. The point is that if you want to to define something as "okay" if it has "no expense" to anyone else then you need a set of rules about what constitutes an "expense" and what does no. The determination of those rules with require subjective determinations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe my example was bad. If I tell you I’m 6’4’’ would that be subjective? If yes, than all things are subjective, if not read my example again in that light. If “expense” cannot be measured it isn’t immoral.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
Tom,

Great topic, and I want to mull it over further before I jump in headfirst. That said, I would like to offer that the fundamental problem with moral relativism is that pretty much eliminates any basis for any type of normative judgement on behalf of competing moral systems (as you term it) and, more importantly, undermines the the proposition of moral relativism as the standard. I hope I didnt phrase that too awkwardly. I'll try to add more later.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I think I get what your saying. Its like in Einsteinian relativity everything is relative except the speed of light which is the constant by which you judge and measure everything else. What is the C in moral equations?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tom,

Great topic, and I want to mull it over further before I jump in headfirst. That said, I would like to offer that the fundamental problem with moral relativism is that pretty much eliminates any basis for any type of normative judgement on behalf of competing moral systems (as you term it) and, more importantly, undermines the the proposition of moral relativism as the standard. I hope I didnt phrase that too awkwardly. I'll try to add more later.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I think I get what your saying. Its like in Einsteinian relativity everything is relative except the speed of light which is the constant by which you judge and measure everything else. What is the C in moral equations?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's still the speed of light.

Good = C^2 - Evil

[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.