Moral relativity

[Copernicus]

[ 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.

[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.

[ianlippert]

[ 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.

[mosdef]

[ 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.

[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 ]
[ 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".

[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.