[OT] Moral Relativism..Explain..

[Celtavian]

Does someone want to explain this concept? It seems like utter BS to me, and I don't get it.

An act is either evil or good or nothing. There is no doing evil for good reasons or doing good for evil reasons, such situations never exist, never.

I don't understand it, and I have never read anyone who could explain moral relativism well at all. All moral relativism seems like to me is one person's way of trying to create some kind of karmic scale where an evil act and a good act balance each other out or add up to more than the other. For example, a moral relativist seems to think an alcoholic father who beats his children would suddenly be absolved of evil because he himself was beat as a child or rescued a single baby from a burning bus.

Is this the case? Do people who believe in moral relativism really believe that good and evil somehow balance each other out within the framework of a person's life? Do they really believe that evil can be done for a good cause?

I definitely wonder if this is the case. I see the philosophy of moral relativism used often when alignment is discussed, and I would love to have it explained.

 

[Pielorinho]

From The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Moral relativism, as opposed to other forms of relativism, is the view that moral standards are grounded only in social custom. The most famous statement of relativism in general is by the ancient Greek sophist Protagoras (480-411 BCE.): "Man is the measure of all things," or in a more complete and contemporary translation, "A human being is the measure of all things - of things that are, that they are, and of things that are not that they are not." This reflects the view of many of the sophists that social convention (nomos) has a status above nature (physis). Although Protagoras's claim applies to any proposed standard of knowledge, moral values are at least part of his position. David Hume (1711-1776) hints at the notion of moral relativism in his brief essay "A Dialogue," appended to his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751). However, for much of the history of moral philosophy, moral relativism was a controversial position that stood in sharp contrast to more conventional theories that advocated an ideal standard of absolute morality. At times, the notion of moral relativism was developed more by philosophical critics of relativism, rather than by overt philosophical defenders of relativism.

The full article is somewhat longer. Hope this helps!

Daniel

 

[BryonD]

One person would say this thread should be closed now before it gets really ugly.

Another would say we should let it actually get ugly before we respond to the ugliness.

This is moral relativism

 

[Tsyr]

First, I'm not a moral relativist, really. I firmly believe in Good and Evil. Certain things are always evil. Certain things are always good. Certain things aren't either. But I disagree with the last part of this phrase.

An act is either evil or good or nothing. There is no doing evil for good reasons or doing good for evil reasons, such situations never exist, never.

This isn't exactly true.

To use one of the more hypothetical examples, imagine that whatever diety you believe in (Or ultra-powerfull space aliens I guess, if your an athiest) came down to you and said "I/we will end all wars and hatered forever on your world. The only price is you kill one absolutely innocent person.". If you did it, that would be and evil act, but done for a good reason.

Granted, that's not going to happen , but the same general concept exists all over in real life.

See, the thing is, a true moral relativist would say the act wasn't evil, because it wasn't done for evil reasons. I view the act as evil, even if it was done for good reasons.

I'd also advise you to tread very lightly here... This borders on a lot of touchy subjects, including both religion and potentialy politics. And I'll be honest, your first post was a touch... excited... and you might wanna watch your step, or this thread is probably gonna get closed.

 

[Pielorinho]

I think people misuse the term in arguments here and elsewhere.

Moral relativism doesn't mean that an evil act may become good depending on circumstances -- in fact, I think that's a noncontroversial position. It's evil to slam your child to the ground -- but if your kid is about to run out into traffic and you leap on top of your kid to prevent this, you've not committed an evil act.

Moral relativism goes beyond suggesting that the morality of an act is determined by its context: it suggests that the morality of an act is determined by the society that judges the act.

Check out this post on the Fox and the Hedgehog for a different way to look at the law/chaos dichotomy.

Daniel

 

[JacktheRabbit]

So what is the difference between Moral Relativism and Cultural Relativism?

 

[Pielorinho]

See, the thing is, a true moral relativist would say the act wasn't evil, because it wasn't done for evil reasons. I view the act as evil, even if it was done for good reasons.

Your example, Tsyr, is interesting (usually it's framed as the child-vs.-the-train dilemma), but I think it really illustrates the difference between a rights-based view of the world and a utilitarian view of the world. Utilitarians believe in the greatest good for the greatest number, and would therefore kill one person to save many people. Rights-based people believe that people have inalienable rights, and that you're not allowed to violate a person's rights for any sort of "greater good" rationale."

Moral relativists, OTOH, would say that it's good to kill the innocent person if the society judging the act says it's good, and it's evil to kill the innocent person if the society judging the act is evil.

Daniel

 

[Tsyr]

I think people misuse the term in arguments here and elsewhere.

Moral relativism doesn't mean that an evil act may become good depending on circumstances -- in fact, I think that's a noncontroversial position. It's evil to slam your child to the ground -- but if your kid is about to run out into traffic and you leap on top of your kid to prevent this, you've not committed an evil act.

Moral relativism goes beyond suggesting that the morality of an act is determined by its context: it suggests that the morality of an act is determined by the society that judges the act.

Check out this post on the Fox and the Hedgehog for a different way to look at the law/chaos dichotomy.

Daniel

*shrugs*

I was trying to deliberatly mislead the topic of discussion away from the whole cultural bit, since I've rarely seen that NOT turn insulting on a message board, but the fates decided to not like me today...

And yes, the term "moral relativism" does get misused alot. I've just learned to read it as what people generaly intend with it.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Before I get accused of being a moral relativist, I'm going to close this and recommend that the topic be researched and discussed at nutkinland or ship of fools.