Moral relativity

[AWoodside]

Any moral system is going to be definable by some finite set of axioms (could be very large depending). In order to claim there is an objectively superior set of moral axioms I think you need to invoke some type of God-like entity that arbitrarily designates one set over the others. In this case you've just shifted the subjectivity though, as God's choice of moral axioms is subjective to him. I think this would make it objective to us though, as God presumably exists outside of the system we operate in and defines its rules.

That being said, as an atheist, of course I don't believe in an objective morality. You can get some manner of objectivity depending on the scope you're interested in though. For example, I think the moral axioms that most cultures around the globe tend to share are an evolutionary phenomenon, and you could argue that this set is in some sense objective.

An interesting observation I've made that has led me towards ACism, is that whatever subjective criteria I decide to maximize (that falls in the 'normal, non pathological' spectrum), whether it be happiness, freedom, individual autonomy, reduction of poverty, base level of health, etc. the best solution I can think of is a free-market solution (ESPECIALLY if we're talking about the long term). Although of course it's not objective, I think we could get pretty close to a morality that smells like it's objective if we could find one that maximized the majority of criteria the majority of humans would find desirable.

[Dane S]

Morality is just a giant cloud of beliefs and judgments inside someone's head. It is subjective. Large groups can share many of these beliefs and judgments and so create a group morality which is also subjective. Groups of these large groups can share many of these beliefs and judgments and then you have an even wider morality. If you take everyone on the planet, it probably is possible to find some moral beliefs that everyone shares... this group of beliefs I suppose you could call objective morality even though it's still really subjective. The distinction doesn't matter until aliens show up.

[nietzreznor]

I vote no.

[ConstantineX]

[ 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 ]

I think the most acceptable standard (of course not objective), but intellectually appealing is consistency. A morality could be a series of ad-hoc axioms, with no logic behind the underlying philosophy. I can think of at least one reason we reject inconsistent morals. For example, we generally recognize that there are serious, difficult moral questions that any morality has to seek to address. An inconsistent morality is necessarily SPECIFIED, meaning that outside of its rules there is no logical deduction to "bigger" principles. Starting from consistent moral rules allows one to extrapolate through deduction more pragmatic laws that attempt to deal with the difficult moral situations society deals with.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
it probably is possible to find some moral beliefs that everyone shares

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think that is possible at all, at least if you take into account actions, and not professed beliefs.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Any moral system is going to be definable by some finite set of axioms (could be very large depending). In order to claim there is an objectively superior set of moral axioms I think you need to invoke some type of God-like entity that arbitrarily designates one set over the others. In this case you've just shifted the subjectivity though, as God's choice of moral axioms is subjective to him. I think this would make it objective to us though, as God presumably exists outside of the system we operate in and defines its rules.

That being said, as an atheist, of course I don't believe in an objective morality. You can get some manner of objectivity depending on the scope you're interested in though. For example, I think the moral axioms that most cultures around the globe tend to share are an evolutionary phenomenon, and you could argue that this set is in some sense objective.

An interesting observation I've made that has led me towards ACism, is that whatever subjective criteria I decide to maximize (that falls in the 'normal, non pathological' spectrum), whether it be happiness, freedom, individual autonomy, reduction of poverty, base level of health, etc. the best solution I can think of is a free-market solution (ESPECIALLY if we're talking about the long term). Although of course it's not objective, I think we could get pretty close to a morality that smells like it's objective if we could find one that maximized the majority of criteria the majority of humans would find desirable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This should lead you away from AC, where any more powerful actor or group of actors can restrict your freedom at their individual whim. At least under a state that shares most of your beliefs, "morality" isnt automatically determined by the highest bidder.

[xorbie]

[ 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, moral relativism (I don't like the term, I prefer inter-subjectivity) implies that we can't be lazy and simply assume one great moral "prime mover". There is no one source from which all moral right and wrong flow. There is no one law or calculator to which we can simply defer. It means that conversations about morality must be just that: conversations, between actors, about morality.

We can only hope that everyone involved is reasonable.

[vulturesrow]

[ 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, moral relativism (I don't like the term, I prefer inter-subjectivity) implies that we can't be lazy and simply assume one great moral "prime mover". There is no one source from which all moral right and wrong flow. There is no one law or calculator to which we can simply defer. It means that conversations about morality must be just that: conversations, between actors, about morality.

We can only hope that everyone involved is reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whats the point of the "morality conversation" if its all relative? I would assume the discussion would be an effort to find out what system is best. But you cant figure that out if moral relativism is the standard. There is a reason that straight up moral relativism has largely died out in academia. Sure there are some who offer up some pretty sophisticated dodges, but ultimately they cant get away from this very simple fact.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Whats the point of the "morality conversation" if its all relative? I would assume the discussion would be an effort to find out what system is best. But you cant figure that out if moral relativism is the standard. There is a reason that straight up moral relativism has largely died out in academia. Sure there are some who offer up some pretty sophisticated dodges, but ultimately they cant get away from this very simple fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moral relativism is a fact, not a standard. That's the point. There is nothing beyond what we agree (and by extension, what we disagree) on. Nothing.

How do we convince one another? Blood, sweat and tears. The stuff of life. This is why I don't really care if moral relativism is dead in academia (which it isn't).

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I would assume the discussion would be an effort to find out what system is best. But you cant figure that out if moral relativism is the standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can have the discussion as long as you abandon any hope of an objective morality and focus instead on utilitarianism, which I think someone above said was their "objective morality". Since I don't believe in moral absolutes I would characterize utilitarianism as superseding any morality, not as a morality unto itself.