A critique of moral relativism

My working hypothesis: moral systems appear to be relative when we magnify the details. Put the magnifying glass down, though, and universally shared priorities emerge.I'd say three priorities most human moral systems share are these:

Empathy
Choices arising from empathy are more valid morally than choices that do not.

​

Truth
Choices that recognize and accommodate truth are more valid morally than choices made in disregard of truth.

​

Life
Choices that nurture and sustain life are more valid morally than choices that extinguish it.

There could me more.People agree on quite a lot. Few would have trouble using the word 'evil' of a person who, for the sheer power kick, deliberately released a microbe onto the world that would extinguish all life on the planet in a matter of weeks.Moral debates arise in those cases where one universally shared priority conflicts with another. We argue at the boundaries.Abortion, assisted suicide, capital punishment, warfare, animal rights--these debates are debates because they place the premises underlying our moral systems into conflict. The priorities of empathy, truth, and life seem at odds no matter what we choose.One often hears some person sagely pronounce all morals 'relative' when witnessing such debates. The pronouncement is usually premature. It overlooks all the ideas in play. It overlooks the values that are not debated--the values that are simply assumed.Both sides in these moral debates make their arguments using the same priorities, differently weighed.Notice that there are some arguments you never hear. Supporters of abortion rights and capital punishment make their case many ways, but you never hear anyone say abortions and executions should take place because killing is just a dandy thing and the more killing we can have in the world, the better. Neither do opponents of abortion and capital punishment argue that pregnant teens and violent criminals are just so much inorganic matter worthy of no more empathy than a doorknob. Such arguments would not be moral arguments at all. They disregard the (recognized, assumed) foundations of morality.We debate moral issues by appealing to our shared grounds. We ask which choice is more humane, more honest, more nurturing of life.Sometimes no single answer ticks all the boxes. Even so, we know the questions.________Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

A well crafted formulation. I will remember this. That's my take on it as well. Another variable is the shifting definition of one's 'society'--where we set the boundaries that separate the beings we protect from the beings we protect them from.Relatives? Clan? Nation? Species? All living things?Party? Religion? Ethnicity? Orientation? Gender?Humane animal treatment is a case in point. It's not a cause our species musters much energy for when we are surrounded by predators that could kill us at any moment. The idea gains traction in societies where animals have been domesticated or even admitted as honorary members ('pets'). Animals now reside inside the circle of protection.Even today, animal rights advocates have much more to say about the humane treatment of beef cattle than about the humane treatment of tapeworms. Some animals are more equal than others.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : detail.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

On the contrary. PaulK did exactly this in Message 177:

quote:

---

Morality is the name that we give to those behavioural instincts that positively contribute to working together as a society, balancing personal interest with the interests of others.

---

This provides the basis you requested for the regulation of violence, property and so on.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Here is the statement by PaulK:

quote:

---

Morality is the name that we give to those behavioural instincts that positively contribute to working together as a society, balancing personal interest with the interests of others.

---

You respond (ikabod): Wouldn't the path consist of asking what actions and restraints (1) positively contribute to working together as a society and (2) balance personal interest with the interests of others?Then making prescriptions and proscriptions accordingly?___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I don't see how. Someone--even if that person is a member of 'the skilled few' who 'manipulate the thoughts' of the majority--asks:

what actions and restraints (1) positively contribute to working together as a society and (2) balance personal interest with the interests of others?

And makes prescriptions and proscriptions accordingly.Do those 'prescriptions and proscriptions' sometimes outlast their usefulness in history? Sure. All the time.Then the questions are asked anew--by the 'skilled few' or others, as need be--and the process continues.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : added detail.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I understand what you say about the advisability of taking personal responsibility over accepting hand-me-down answers. And I agree that it's the best way to go.But that's neither here nor there as far as what I was talking about. I was talking about what a system of morals is called upon to do, no matter who designs it.I liked Straggler's formulation:

what actions and restraints (1) positively contribute to working together as a society and (2) balance personal interest with the interests of others?

In your eagerness to manifest your cynicism, you inserted a couple of bits: But you haven't really added anything.Any moral construct works the way the constructor 'thinks it should.' There is nothing insidious about this; it's just true by definition. If you don't think a belief works, you don't believe in it. A system of morals will be the product of what someone 'thinks' regardless of whether the thinking is done by many people, a few people, or one person.As for you getting what you want and others getting what they want, the question of how to balance the needs of the individual and the needs of the group is already in the picture. You tell us you don't like how some systems draw that picture. But the fact that they draw it is the point. That's the question moral systems address. Solutions differ.____Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.