A critique of moral relativism

Well that's interesting because I HAVE been listening to what I am saying. I wish I could honestly say that you have been listening to what I've been saying. But I can't,

quote:

---

Listen to me, please. When I brought up beastiality, incest, pedophilia, or whatever else, in a context of homosexuality, it was always from a reference from a moral position.

​

The argument I've made is this: how can you say that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, while maintaining that incest or pedophilia is not, all the while defending moral relativism?

---

Because I can see reasons to object to bestiality which I consider adequate and I can't see similar reasons to object to homosexuality. Why can't I do that ? That's what I'm asking and you aren't answering.

quote:

---

Why am I considered a "bigot," when

​

1. Morals are merely an opinion.
2. How can you possibly distinguish which is good, and which isn't, while holding to a relative standard?

​

The answer is that you can't without compromising one or both positions. Its a lesson in futility-- one that apparently quite a few still haven't learned.

---

You are considered a bigot because you keep making inflammatory comparisons and some take them as representing your true thoughts. How does this contradict moral relativism ?Your second point is even sillier. If I've got a standard I just compare the action against the standard. What on earth is the problem there ? Where's this supposed compromise ?

quote:

---

The ENTIRE point of the argument is that you, as a relativist, cannot defend both positions philosophically without contradicting those beliefs. How has this flown over everyone's head? Seriously. I'm absolutely mystified.

---

In some cases it is because of your choice of examples. In my case the assertion hasn't passed over my head. It's just that you haven't managed to support it. Even when I ask.

quote:

---

Secondly, how is it that people can say that I can't use beastiality, either in an argument on morals or nature, because the sexuality of animals and humans are too different. Yet, these are the same people who have no problem pointing out that homosexual unions are found within nature, and use that as a justification that extends to humans.

---

So far as I know nobody uses the first argument. The latter in is only used as a refutation of the claim that homosexuality is unnatural - without the qualification that it is only unnatural to humans. True it leaves open the possibility that homosexuality might be unnatural to humans - but it does refute any suggestion that homosexual behaviour should be automatically considered unnatural. In the context it is actually used it's good enough - unless and until a case is made that homosexual behaviour really is unnatural to humans. I've not seen that done. The usual response is to shift the goal-posts.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Actually, I've been asking this to all my detractors. No one has answered it outright. You are the first. How can I answer that question when you haven't given me an example of the alleged misrepresentation?

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

No one has said that morals are only an opinion. Actually, there again you misrepresent what people have said. Yes, people have answered the question. I have been answering that question or variations on it since Message 11 so far.Morals are a religious concept and so related to a given religion in a given culture and milieu.Morality is also totally irrelevant outside the individual and that person's deity.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So then it still boils down to your perception against mine. And if its all relative, what is that supposed to mean to me? Its as asinine as you telling me that you like Chocolate ice cream, and me saying in response, okay, thanks for sharing. Because you are using my alleged bigotry in an absolute sense-- consequently, your own. If morals really are relative, then you calling me a bigot is merely your opinion.... So, what?By calling me a bigot, you are demanding that I conform to some sort of standard that you allege I am violating. If I am, by what standard am I violating? Because its your opinion against mine. You saying that I'm wrong is pointless. All that my counter argument has to be, is: Okay, thanks for sharing your opinion with me.But lets all agree that moral relativity is all that we have. I will respond accordingly. According yo you, my answer is just another opinion in a myriad of others. But for you, you will invariably contradict yourself with no help from me. If homosexuality cannot be reasonably identified as unnatural, then neither can beastiality or pedophilia. Which means, you are making the same moral pronouncements that I am. Where then do they come from?

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

quote:

---

So then it still boils down to your perception against mine. And if its all relative, what is that supposed to mean to me? Its as asinine as you telling me that you like Chocolate ice cream, and me saying in response, okay, thanks for sharing.

---

Yes it does. The question is, do I have a good case ? Who do other people agree with ? Whose position is more consistent with basic moral principles ?And you can't offer anything better. You've admitted that you can't prove any moral absolutes. Believing in moral absolutes won't solve disagreements - not in itself.

quote:

---

Because you are using my alleged bigotry in an absolute sense-- consequently, your own. If morals really are relative, then you calling me a bigot is merely your opinion.... So, what?

---

Calling someone a bigot is not really a moral judgement, so your point fails. To make it work you would have to admit to being a bigot but argue that tere was nothing wrong with that.

quote:

---

But lets all agree that moral relativity is all that we have. I will respond accordingly.

---

I hope that means that you are not going to turn to nihilism to "prove" your point. Because it won't.

quote:

---

If homosexuality cannot be reasonably identified as unnatural, then neither can beastiality or pedophilia.

---

Why not ? It doesn't follow from the arguments raised. You get called a bigot because you keep making these assertions without providing any reason why you need to do it. Your behaviour does raise the reasonable suspicion that you think that all these activities are equivalent.

quote:

---

Which means, you are making the same moral pronouncements that I am. Where then do they come from?

---

In this case mainly from society, although there may be a genetic element, too. (There almost certainly is in the case of incest).

Then is it immoral for their individual morals to be subjected against you?

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

Paul, please, don't be so naive. In the religious moral system of a great, large, huge amount of people, ALL forbidden sexual behaviours ARE equivalent. That is, they are ALL wrong. In Catholicism, for example, they are all as wrong as murder, as genocide, as suicide. They are 'mortal sins'.I know that feels extremely harsh, because we are conditioned to believe that morality is determined by how we affect others. In actuality, that is NOT how many Christians make moral judgements, even though behaviours which harm others are generally condemned.I hope you can understand that in the context of moral relativity, there are many different standards. Please understand that with different standards for 'right' there are different equivalent 'wrongs'. No one is forcing you to like it, but those are the facts. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

What does the agreement of people have to do with anything? Doesn't that only detract from your position? Most people in the world view homosexuality as an aberration. But you maintain otherwise, and a paradigm shift has not taken place within your life. What is a basic moral principle without a basic moral guideline from which to establish a a basic moral principle? I can't prove what is absolutely (im)moral, that's true. And its also true that it won't solve disagreements. The problem is, neither will relativism. But vastly more important-- there never would have been any disagreements to begin with until somebody challenged those absolute morals. What??? That's not a moral judgement? Then what is it? If you call me a bigot for thinking homosexuality is wrong, you are also presuming to call me morally wrong. No, I was responding to Modulous who said that nihilism differs from moral relativism.

quote:

---

:
If homosexuality cannot be reasonably identified as unnatural, then neither can beastiality or pedophilia.

---

Propose a refutation then. Equivalent to what? Morally? I've already said that I question whether or not there are tiers of sin. But if there are not, then bad is bad, sin is sin, wrong is wrong.

quote:

---

Which means, you are making the same moral pronouncements that I am. Where then do they come from?

---

But this society still says that homosexuality is wrong. Remember, you want to change the status quo?And as far as something being bad genetically, its only on an individual level. What's bad for the individual may be great for the population.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

That sentence doesn't even make sense. You keep conflating right and wrong, moral and immoral, legal and illegal as though they were in anyway related. Another persons morals cannot be subjected against me. It is simply impossible.Morality is purely a religious concept. Whether something is moral or immoral is only relevant within a given religious context and only relevant to the adherents of that particular morality set.You are a bigot, but that is unrelated to the question of whether your behavior is moral or immoral. You are judged a bigot based on the standard of a particular portion of society. Within the Christian Cult of Ignorance and Christian Communion of Bobble-heads, your message may not be seen as either immoral or even wrong.I make no assessment as to whether your message is moral or immoral, as I said, that is totally irrelevant to me. That is unimportant.However, based on the social norms and ethics of myself and perhaps others, I find your position bigoted and frankly, pitiful.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Almost everybody has an intrinsic sense of fairness - though it differs from person to person and it is viewed through a variety of social lenses. I reckon my best strategy would be to demonstrate that their practice was unfair by their own standards. My other hope would be try and convince them that there is a better way to achieve their stated goals and that their penal system would undermine those stated goals. I cannot appeal to some absolute moral code to show them they are wrong - such an appeal would no doubt fall on deaf ears - unless it happened to be the absolute moral system they happen to follow. Moral relativism holds that no party is right and no party is wrong. Yes. There is no morally correct action to take. Just different actions with different consequences. The British authorities (I doubt it's just English authorities) will have to examine the moral code they have been elected to uphold. Of course, this is not an easy job and I'm glad I don't have it. As I said in the OP - moral relativism cannot provide an absolute answer to this question and it isn't intended to. The question the authorities need ask is "What is morally right according to our national moral zeitgeist?" Moral truths can never be established as absolutely true or false, according to moral relativism. There is no stalemate, just the acceptance of morally grey. Those who have to make a moral judgement can only do that very thing: make a judgement. Sometimes they will later think they did the wrong thing, sometimes they will think later that they did the right thing. Acceptance comes when one realizes that the judgement was made at the time given the information and time to think that one had at the time. Growth comes from realizing when something you did was wrong and adjusting behaviour and making recompense to those you feel you harmed. Not really. If you are intolerant of opinions/beliefs/lifestyles different than your own you are a bigot. It's a definitional issue not a moral one. Whether you are intolerant or not is a judgement call which does not require moral questioning. That was my fault. A better phrase might be life is ajust. We humans have to define what just is for ourselves and try and make our social interactions live up to that standard. More specifically moral truths can only be be made relative to some standard be it our own or another one. If that is what you define a nihilist as then moral relativists are not nihilists. Relativists only claim there is no absolute standard of morality and a moral relativist can believe this and also that we justify other knowledge claims. It is only the knowledge of the truth of a moral proposition that cannot be known with any veracity. Nihilists go further than relativists. What of the nihilist who says that he doesn't know knowledge is impossible, but that is what he believes? Either way, this is not a topic on nihilism nor is it one on moral nihilism. It is about moral relativism, which is a moral philosophy not a philosophy on everything. It is a moral philosophy that holds there are multiple valid ways of structuring human interaction and that a moral proposition cannot be said to be true without a frame of reference or moral standard to compare it relative to.Moral relativism is not about denying morality, just acknowledging that there are different moral systems and that there is no way to ascribe a truth value to any one of them.

I've used moral not to mean 'good' but to mean 'not bad' just to avoid the awkwardness of those clumsy negatives. I'm not sure on the wording here so I'll try and reword it (all the negatives in it are confusing me), whilst also replying to you. Hopefully this'll work, but apologies if it doesn't. NJ is explicitly arguing that if you think homosexuality is moral then you are a moral relativist and are employing moral relativism to justify calling homosexuality moral. Therefore, you should justify calling any sexual practice moral. That looks about right. From a personal level it looks to me like he has been told what relativism is, and why it is wrong. Not mindlessly, but once he has reasoned from the faulty information he has been given, he has reached a sequence of reasoning that makes sense to him. I think the best path here is to try arguing the fundamentals, but it might be futile. There are some interesting and fairly good criticisms and NJ is touching on them, I'm hoping it might only take a friendly guiding through relativism so that he reaches the point where he disagrees with moral relativism but at least does not level incorrect criticism at it. Once he realizes that there is no such thing as 'applied relativism' he might see that those who accept homosexuality as moral are not employing it to conclude that homosexuality is moral; they are employing their own moral philosophy.Ever the optimist, neh?

quote:

---

What does the agreement of people have to do with anything?

---

I refer you to your title for this subthread. I have already stated that morality is intersubjective and used language as an analogy. Agreement is important.

quote:

---

What is a basic moral principle without a basic moral guideline from which to establish a a basic moral principle?

---

The most basic elements of morality - those that lie at the base of our social instincts. e..g fairness.

quote:

---

I can't prove what is absolutely (im)moral, that's true. And its also true that it won't solve disagreements. The problem is, neither will relativism. But vastly more important-- there never would have been any disagreements to begin with until somebody challenged those absolute morals.

---

i.e. your point is irrelevant since the problem is there even if we believe in an absolute morality. And relative systems work too - so long as they aren't challenged. But any system will be challenged because - as you admit - there's no way to prove any system correct. Sooner or later someone will challenge the status quo. And in a world like ours with competing systems that claim to be moral absolutes you will never get a system that is unchallenged unless you lock yourselves away from the world.

quote:

---

What??? That's not a moral judgement? Then what is it? If you call me a bigot for thinking homosexuality is wrong, you are also presuming to call me morally wrong.

---

Only because you agree that it is morally wrong to be a bigot. Look at the definition. No explicit reference to a moral judgement there.

quote:

---

No, I was responding to Modulous who said that nihilism differs from moral relativism.

---

I based that comment on your argument that only absolute morals count. If you really believe that then an acceptance that we don't have an absolute morality could lead you to nihilism - and your statement resembled a threat closely enough that it could have meant that.

quote:

---

Propose a refutation then.

---

Sorry I can't let you get away with evading this issue - after all it's a perfect opportunity for you to show that you are not a bigot. That you actually have a good reason for linking homosexuality, bestiality, paedophilia and incest in your argument. Odd that you are so reluctant to take advantage of it. And the forum rules do require you to support your points.

quote:

---

Equivalent to what? Morally? I've already said that I question whether or not there are tiers of sin. But if there are not, then bad is bad, sin is sin, wrong is wrong.

---

No, I'm suggesting that it looks as if you are implying that the acts are so similar that they should be judged together. I'm sure that you're going to prove that isn't so by providing a good argument instead of just evading the issue. Again.

quote:

---

But this society still says that homosexuality is wrong. Remember, you want to change the status quo?

---

THIS society is divided on the issue. Enough people do not feel that homosexuality is wrong - or that if it is wrong there should still be no legal or civil penalties for homosexuality and homosexuals should enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. The law now provides for a good deal of equality for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Even in your society things have moved that way in parts at least. And of course getting morals form society isn't simply a matter of agreeing with the majority. There is still an individual element, differing priorities, different evaluations, different applications of the basic moral principles.

quote:

---

And as far as something being bad genetically, its only on an individual level. What's bad for the individual may be great for the population.

---

I refer you back to your chosen title. I am referring to a genetic basis for aspects of morality - e.g. the aversion to incest. Not to advantages or disadvantages of genes.

quote:

---

I'm not sure on the wording here so I'll try and reword it (all the negatives in it are confusing me), whilst also replying to you. Hopefully this'll work, but apologies if it doesn't. NJ is explicitly arguing that if you think homosexuality is moral then you are a moral relativist and are employing moral relativism to justify calling homosexuality moral. Therefore, you should justify calling any sexual practice moral.

---

Yes, that is what he's saying. It still makes no sense. Why can't my relative code permit homosexuality and bar the rest ? And why does he keep evading the question ? Obviously he's hiding something.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I'll have a go at this.I don't even have to consider bestiality or pedophilia.Homosexuality is the attraction to your own sex. This is the main thing that makes it different from heterosexuality, otherwise its basically the same thing.So its people falling in love, living together, getting married, supporting each other, rasing families, and people having one night stands, people living in chosen or involuntary celibacy etc.It happens between consenting adults, or between peers of roughly same age.My question would be - what would make it morally wrong? though people might get hurt it is not inherintly hurtful. It makes people happy, and helps them in their pursuit of happiness.Now I believe that people should be free to live as they please, as long as their choices does not harm other people, or place an undue burden on others or on society.Do you agree with these beliefs? If no - which of them do you disagree with? If you do, then I can't see why you shouldn't agree with me that homosexuality is perfectly fine. Its just a way for people to live which makes themselves and other people happy.If we disagree on some of these things, then we can discuss this and perhaps find that we have different moral groundings, and identify which groundings it is. If they are indeed different then we must agree to disagree, you have your morals and I have mine, and never the twine shall meet.See it wasn't hard, and it was all based on my own morality which I recognize might be different than yours, hence all relative morality.

Rrhain,From your exchange with Mod, I think I understand your position on what moral relativism is and what moral absolutism is. and If I understand correctly, you're saying that moral relativism is using context and situation to determine what is right/wrong, and aboslutism (?) is having a set of absolute rules which dictate moral right and wrong?I don't know classic definitions of these things, but that's not what I had in mind. In my understanding, absolutism means that, given a specific set of circumstances, a “situation”, the set of "morally right" actions is immutable. In this thinking, how to find that set of “morally right” actions may not be straightforward (or maybe not even knowable), and certainly not based on a set of context-free rules, but the set “exists”. Moral relativism, then, is simply the view that, for a given situation, there is no such set of “morally right” actions.Disregarding whether our meanings of the term “moral relativism” are not matching, do you think all people are moral relativists in the sense that I've described? I believe you'll say “yes”, as their actions still are relativist. In that case, I would say that as I've defined it, these things ARE beliefs. The implementation of such beliefs are a related issue, but one that can seemingly be treated separately, no?Ben