Moral Relativism vs Moral Absolutism

[TreyMoney]

Looking for thoughts/feedback on this.

I see moral relativism as a problem for the peaceful evolution of society. People and cultures around the world disagree on the nature of morality, and if moral relativism is accepted as true, I think it will lead to more disagreements and more conflict around the world.

I consider myself to be a moral absolutist.

Moral absolutism is the ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong.

Moral relativism is the ethical view that the morality is not absolute, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.

At the metaphysical level, morality, ethics, and rights are mental concepts / social constructs, because reality is a mental construct.

At the physical/material level, morality and ethics have an internal logic. 

I view morality as being similar to mathematics. Math is a mental concept, but there is an internal logic upon which it is based. Mathematical principles/laws are absolute (a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid), they are not relative. Moral laws do not exist in the same way that the law of gravity exists. You cannot break the law of gravity. Instead moral laws exist in the same way that mathematical laws exist. You either correctly apply mathematical laws and arrive at the right/correct conclusion, or you incorrectly apply mathematical laws and arrive on the wrong/incorrect conclusion.

Similarly, I view moral laws as absolute, not relative. There is a right/correct way to determine which actions are right/correct and thus how human beings should act.

I view Right actions as actions that do not cause physical harm to another person(s) or property or actions in which all parties involved are consenting participants. 

I view Wrong actions as actions that do cause physical harm to another person(s) or property or actions in which not all parties involved are consenting participants.

This is NAP Non-Aggression Principle + Voluntaryism 101.

Help stop the spread of the dangerous virus that is Moral Relativism.

Cheers to health, wealth, peace and love.

TreyMoney

 

[Opo]

24 minutes ago, TreyMoney said:

People and cultures around the world disagree on the nature of morality, 

Moral relativism is the ethical view that the morality is not absolute, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.

Do we need to continue? 

[Godhead]

When I first heard about moral absolutism, I didn't believe that people actually believe in that shit. 

Like I legit thought, philosophers made moral absolutists up to have something to argue against. 

2 hours ago, TreyMoney said:

Moral absolutism is the ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong.

From my understanding, it's not that all views are absolutely right or wrong, but a few or at least one is. 

Who do you think is deciding what is right and what is wrong? Is it you? and what if I disagree with you? 

Moral absolutism is a contradiction in itself and it baffles me how this is not obvious to people. 

[TreyMoney]

Moral absolutism and specifically the NAP is based on an axiomatic belief that peaceful interaction is always preferable to violent interaction.

I can't convince someone to accept this belief. 

If someone accepts this belief, morality follows logically.

If someone rejects this belief and instead believes violence is always or even sometimes preferable to peace, then that person is choosing to live in under the law of the jungle aka might makes right, which is amoral.

Moral absolutism and NAP is the only moral theory that is non-contradictory and internally consistent logically.

This also assumes one is interested in defining a logically consistent morality, which they may not be.

[TreyMoney]

2 hours ago, Opo said:

Do we need to continue? 

Moral relativism doesn't say that people disagree about morality. It is a fact that people disagree about morality, it is not a philosophical argument.

Moral relativism argues that the there is no universal, logically consistent moral framework, and is instead morality is just the illogical whim of culture and society and subject to ad hoc change.

 

[Godhead]

@TreyMoney The fact that your morality is based on a principle that says "violence is bad" automatically makes it relative. Absolute morality wouldn't be based on a principle. Or are you trying to say that your relative morality is absolute? lol

A fly doesn't care if a human get's brutally murdered, in fact, it's happy. Great meal! A human on the other hand would think it's a great horror. Who is right? 

The fact that 2 different opinions exist should be enough proof that moral absolutism is bs. 

Your morality is relative to the values you attribute to human life, society, and your environment. Your morality is completely based on selfish beliefs that you might have, but others might don't. 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by Godhead

[Opo]

21 minutes ago, TreyMoney said:

Moral relativism argues that the there is no universal, logically consistent moral framework, and is instead morality is just the illogical whim of culture and society and subject to ad hoc change.

Sure. 

36 minutes ago, TreyMoney said:

Moral absolutism and specifically the NAP is based on an axiomatic belief that peaceful interaction is always preferable to violent interaction.

Why were people killing and stealing for the entire human history then if it wasn't logically in their interest? 

You should go to Israel and Palestine and tell them that peace is always preferable so they stop fighting. 

[TreyMoney]

@Godhead im very glad that you are engaging in this discussion because these criticisms are commonly encountered.

First, morality is a framework to govern human interaction, not humans interaction with other creatures. 

Second, any moral framework needs a guiding principle.

The guiding principle for all action is choice. 

If I choose to take an action and that action either a) does not impact any other person or b) it does impact another person physically or impacts their property, but that person also consents to my action, then my action is right. 

If my action impacts another person physically or impacts their property, and they do not consent, then that person is wronged or harmed, and the action is wrong.

 

[TreyMoney]

15 minutes ago, Opo said:

Sure. 

Why were people killing and stealing for the entire human history then if it wasn't logically in their interest? 

It's about logical consistency. If it is ok for me to kill someone and steal their stuff, then I should also be ok with someone killing me and stealing my stuff, right? It can't be right for me but wrong for someone else. That's contradictory.

[TreyMoney]

19 minutes ago, Opo said:

You should go to Israel and Palestine and tell them that peace is always preferable so they stop fighting. 

Islam and Judaism are religious belief systems not rational belief systems. Can't reason with religious fundamentalists. 

[Opo]

2 minutes ago, TreyMoney said:

It's about logical consistency. 

Ok, why? 

[Godhead]

30 minutes ago, TreyMoney said:

any moral framework needs a guiding principle.

So.. you basically admit that morality is relative, but you would like to imagine that your relative idea of morality is absolutely true for everyone.

 

[TreyMoney]

14 minutes ago, Opo said:

Ok, why? 

Because morality is a framework for guiding action. And logically consistent frameworks result in correct conclusions while logically inconsistent framework result in incorrect conclusions.

It's like asking why should I apply mathematical principles when solving equations? The answer is whether you value the correct conclusion or not. 

If someone is not interested in the correct conclusion, that is fine. But if they are, they should apply the laws of logic.

The branches of philosophy have an order to them.

1. Metaphysics: study of reality.

2. Epistemology: study of knowledge.

3. Logic: study of reason.

4. Axiology: study of value.

1&2 are empirical based. 

3&4 are reason based. 

Logic is prerequisite to any type framework, moral or otherwise.

 

 

 

[TreyMoney]

@Godhead

3 minutes ago, Godhead said:

So.. you basically admit that morality is relative, but you would like to imagine that your relative idea of morality is absolutely true for everyone.

 

What separates my "relative" morality is its logical consistency. 

Apply the coma test: a human being in a coma is not acting. So if violence is morally good, then anyone not acting violently this instant is immoral, thus the coma patient is immoral. If violence is good, then in order for the coma patient to be a moral being they must awake from the coma and begin acting violently, which they cannot do, because they cannot act. It is incoherent.

But if non-violence is morally good, then anyone not acting violently at this very moment, such as our coma patient, are moral beings.

[TreyMoney]

Irrational moralities lead to contradictory conclusions.

Rational moralities lead to consistent conclusions.

I have only discovered one rational, consistent, non-contradictory morality....the NAP Voluntary moral framework, thus I believe it is the only rational moral framework, thus moral absolutism. 

There are certainly other moral frameworks but they lead to contradictory conclusions, and are thus false, incorrect moral frameworks.

[TreyMoney]

Also, by simply engaging in philosophical discourse, a person is actively valuing the search for truth, through the use of reason. 

So to deny reason while simultaneously engaging in argument is itself contradictory. 

[Opo]

Your logical consistency would lead to inconsistent outcomes, because peace and violence are relative. 

For example you and me can both follow your rule and i see corporate abuse of the environment as violence and you don't. 

By your logic now I'm justified to use violence against them but you're not. 

[TreyMoney]

@Opo so here we need to come to an agreed upon definition of violence before we can continue.

I define violence as an action that harms a human being physically or harms their property against their will.

What is your definition of violence?

[Opo]

7 minutes ago, TreyMoney said:

@Opo so here we need to come to an agreed upon definition of violence before we can continue.

I define violence as an action that harms a human being physically or harms their property against their will.

What is your definition of violence?

I'll take your definition for this argument. To make it simpler. 

Do you think that when corporations pay politicians to reduce regulations on environmental stuff. That that is violence? 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Opo

[TreyMoney]

@Opo i think corporate pollution of the environment is violence, yes, because it harms people without their consent.

Imagine there is an oil spill, and it pollutes a river that runs by my home that I use for drinking water. The oil spill causes harm to my portion of the river stream and harm to me if I drink the water. That is definitely violence.

Corporations forcing people off of land is definitely violence. 

Corporations use moral relativism to their advantage by changing the laws to whatever suits them at the moment.