Thoughts on moral relativism?

[x_x]

Curious to see what people think of moral relativism i.e the belief that morality is not objective and varies between cultures. I personally do not subscribe to such a philosophy but am curious to see what others think.

 

[SexyIncél]

We seem to have some sort of innate moral sense, that nevertheless can be culturally/socially/historically affected

True relativists have hidden assumptions with real consequences:

If one holds that "violence" (or any other term for that matter) is simply whatever a culture or society defines it to be, then one is assuming there are uniform entities that can be referred to as "cultures" or "societies," authorities that can speak for them on such matters, and some fairly dependable system whereby the outside observer can identify them. In other words, about the only thing the relativist does have to universalize are structures of authority.

 

[x_x]

We seem to have some sort of innate moral sense, that nevertheless can be culturally/socially/historically affected

True relativists have hidden assumptions with real consequences:

This is a very interesting take. I have not read the full interview of Chomsky that you linked, but upon a cursory glance it seems that he holds a moral sense to be on par with language. It is interesting since I had always assumed a moral sense to be an extension of language and not independent from it. I think that attributing certain affects of language to cultural/social/historical factors is logically sound, as it would (at most) clarify tribal attitudes towards killing i.e holding killing to function on equivalency and not a judicial system.

Assuming that I am not incorrect here, I can understand that this second proposal refers to the value (whatever that means) of varying terms predicated by an authoritative body. Does this entail that moral disagreements between cultures can be reduced to disagreements between these authorities, or (likely), a perceived disagreement? If so, would an individual holding such and such values within a society be his own authority in determining what the society values, or would he appeal to another in justifying a moral response? This may be true in cases whereby an individual may look toward a judicial/religious authority for moral guidance, but are we to believe that any moral proposition entails this response?

In any case, it would require that we view values held to different terms as being constructed by these authorities, though the basis of their justification being real. Thus reason would be requisite in determining if an authority can speak for a specific argument, assuming that it is something which we can distinguish as a 'moral proposition.' Further, if an agent finds some moral proposition which he is uncertain explicates any socially determined value, would he form an argument that predicates what a society may value and thus determine what is an optimal response (the basis being induced)? I don't think that I fully understand these arguments seperately, though I understand their conclusion. I will give it a more in-depth look some other time.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think the nuances in what is considered moral are affected by culture and upbringing. So- my Grandma and Dad believed it was sinful to have sex outside of marriage. That isn't a very common idea now. I imagine the majority of people do.

When it comes down to the bare basics though- basically to treat others with respect- I've wondered that myself. Are we intrinsically moral creatures, or are we taught to be that way? I think maybe it's a bit of both. Seeing as we are mostly social creatures- we rely and are subject to those around us- I think we maybe learn from experience that we need to show others respect. Especially those who are stronger than us. I don't think we are just taught that- I think we learn it for ourselves.

Have you ever read the book: 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins? He claims that as well as dominant self serving genes, we have also evolved to have altruistic genes- because we live in societies I suppose. Where- it can help us in the long term if we help others.

 

[x_x]

I think the nuances in what is considered moral are affected by culture and upbringing. So- my Grandma and Dad believed it was sinful to have sex outside of marriage. That isn't a very common idea now. I imagine the majority of people do.

When it comes down to the bare basics though- basically to treat others with respect- I've wondered that myself. Are we intrinsically moral creatures, or are we taught to be that way? I think maybe it's a bit of both. Seeing as we are mostly social creatures- we rely and are subject to those around us- I think we maybe learn from experience that we need to show others respect. Especially those who are stronger than us. I don't think we are just taught that- I think we learn it for ourselves.

Have you ever read the book: 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins? He claims that as well as dominant self serving genes, we have also evolved to have altruistic genes- because we live in societies I suppose. Where- it can help us in the long term if we help others

This is quite compelling, since I have often pondered those questions myself. I think it is definitely true that we rely on our own behavior in order to determine what is optimal in a given situation. I think that is why you will see paragons of morality within various societies; primarily, it is an expression of the status quo, and will likely benefit said person. This is probably why you will also see others who try to defy conventional moral norms, or at least conventional by the standards of a given group.
Moral judgements that are espoused will often reveal systems of belief (in the example of your Grandmother and Father, it's immediatly clear that they had religious conviction).

It's interesting to hear the view that morality is entrained within evolution. I will be sure to check out Dawkins' work!

 

[SexyIncél]

Assuming that I am not incorrect here, I can understand that this second proposal refers to the value (whatever that means) of varying terms predicated by an authoritative body.

Sorry! I should've explained better

The author was explaining how authoritarians (like one cop called "Officer Mindfuck") are often moral relativists:

... we spent a good deal of time in a somewhat reluctant dialogue with a police lieutenant who came quickly to be known, among the prisoners, as "Officer Mindfuck"—a man who boarded the bus, apparently, simply to entertain himself by debating us. On pretty much every topic, he took the same approach: trying to convince us we were not taking a sufficiently relativistic position.

It didn't seem to be a ploy, either—at least, when he did leave the bus (to our great collective relief) the first thing he remarked to his fellow officers outside was "the problem with those guys is they don't understand there's more than one side to any question."

In a world where there is absolutely no way to know whether IMF policies are beneficial or harmful, there is no basis on which to make a principled stand about anything: it does make sense that one might conclude following the rules, whatever they are, is the only possible moral course of action. And afterwards I began noticing that, whenever police were laying down the law, they treated objections in exactly the same way...

 

[duwangJEff]

I think that morality is almost entirely subjective/relative. What is "moral" is almost always determined by your culture/society.

I would say there is some amount of "morality" built into the human brain, since people often feel guilt when hurting others, and feel good when helping others. Biologically, we are wired to be cooperative with other humans.

But for the most part, I would say morality is dictated by society. Something is bad because there are consequences for it