Moral Relativism vs Moral Absolutism

[TreyMoney]

@Godhead do you know of any good books on spiral dynamics?

[Godhead]

@TreyMoney

[TreyMoney]

@Godhead which of those have you read?

[Godhead]

All except the never-ending quest and emergence. 

Imo the first one is the best. 

Integral psychology is also really good, but it's not specifically about spiral dynamics, it compares a lot of different developmental models.

[r0ckyreed]

I used to believe in objective morality for the longest time in my life.

But after studying philosophy and many cultures, what is right and wrong is completely relative. If you look at history, Moral Absolutism or Objectivism was used to justify all sorts of violence. Look at Japanese Americans 1942 or War in Vietnam or The Genocide of Native Americans. All of that came from a Moral Absolutist perspective of that “we are right and they are wrong so we must change their culture and their beliefs cause ours is correct.” Absolutism leads to ethnocentrism naturally because if you think there are right answers to moral questions which are based on cultural perspectives, then you are advocating that some cultures are better or worse than others. But that notion is relative to you and your cultural standards. There is nothing logical about survival or morality. Morality is useful for survival, but that doesn’t mean you can find the correct answers out in the universe. You stated yourself that morality is a mental concept and social construction. If that is true, then the answers to moral questions are always relative to that. The abortion and gun arguments make it clear that relativism is the case even when we agree, relativism is still the case, but it’s confused for objectivism. It all depends on what you value. If you value the rights of a fetus, then abortion is bad. If you value rights of adult humans to have freedom to make their own choices, then right to abortion is good. Who is right? Nobody. It is perspective. You gotta look at where you are drawing these lines in reality and notice that all lines are relative. See my post on relativism and continue to study relativism. Relativism accounts for multiple perspectives and considers others cultures whereas absolutism demonizes cultural practices.

This video also made me question and deconstruct my absolutism

 

[TreyMoney]

Thanks @Godhead

@TreyMoney

Edited May 29, 2021 by TreyMoney

[sweethoneybaby]

The language is primitive. The core definition of Morality is broken down to philosophy.  I think when you speak of Moral relativism vs Moral absolutism, it's not enough to say what is ultimately good and what is ultimately Bad. Because truthful actions is ultimately what's good. For example, A man/corporation forcing people off the land is literally an existing action and therefore it is true. We cannot deny that these things happen within reality/existence. Saying that the action is bad, is placing a judgment onto reality. But in this language: Good is synonymous with existence: All is good. 

Although, I agree such that relativism is a very dangerous thing to push out there. Advance civilizations are possible through culture, and those utopic societies can very well be integrated... like we should honestly have the decency to agree that this economy is trash, and that ignorance is "bad", and that truth/harmony/balance is good.

Edited June 1, 2021 by sweethoneybaby
clarify a few thang

[DocWatts]

I think it's more more useful and more accurate to say that Morality is contextual rather than relative.

More useful because the term Moral Relativism brings with it some baggage, namely that it has heavy connotations with Postmodern theory. Which can serve as a distraction because disagreements over Moral Relativism inevitably tend to become disagreements over Postmodernism.

I'd also argue that morality being Contextual rather than Relative is more accurate as well, because Morality only has any meaning if placed within some sort of broader Context; it can't exist within a vacuum.

Thinking of Morality a Contextual rather than Relative also has the additional advantage that a Contextual conception isn't completely groundless like Relativity. At the very least you can say that all human morality is grounded at the broadest level by the fact that we're social creatures that need to find ways to live and interact with one another. 

Any further Moral considerations will then have to take place within a more clearly defined Context, that can either be somewhat broad or somewhat narrow depending on what Goals you're trying to achieve.

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by DocWatts

[TreyMoney]

To those who believe morality is relative or contextual....please explain a situation where raping a human being is a morally permissible / morally good / morally right / morally correct action?

If we cannot find such a situation, then rape is never morally permissible / morally good / morally right / morally correct and thus we have a moral absolute.

Looking forward to your replies.

[Godhead]

19 minutes ago, TreyMoney said:

please explain a situation where raping a human being is a morally permissible / morally good / morally right / morally correct action?

Raping a human is bad because most of us value autonomy over our bodies and that of others. So raping is bad relative / in the context of that value. 

Some people don't value the autonomy of other human bodies or they just value their own selfish sexual urges more. So in their moral framework, it would be permissible to rape another human being. 

Most of us would agree that rape is bad because most of us live under a similar moral framework. We have come to the collective agreement that we don't want to live in a society where rape is a thing. 

 

If you would want a specific example, imagine there are only 2 humans left on earth, 1 woman and 1 man. Now for the human species' survival, it might be necessary that the man forces his will upon the woman to ensure that survival. So if you would value the survival of the human species more than the autonomy of a person, rape might be permissible. 

Of course, this is highly hypothetical and I'm not trying to justify rape. I'm just trying to explain to you that even the biggest atrocities can be morally justifiable under a different context and a different value system. 

[DocWatts]

I half suspect that people on the extreme end of Moral Relativism don't fully believe what they're advocating; if only because they value thier own autonomy, and wouldn't be happy if society devolved to a level where Slavery was openly practiced again.

It seems far more sensible that the truth is probably somewhere in between the extremes of Morality being completely Relative and Morality being Absolutist.

The idea that Societies haven't made any Moral Progress at all in thousands of years seems overly pessimistic. At the same time, the desire to avoid shovanism about the Morality of one's own Society in and of itself is ironically a sign of Moral Progress I'd argue.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to propose that while Morality is undeniably a Social Construct that's highly contextual, it doesn't necessarily follow that every Moral System is equally functional or well adapted to the Survival Conditions that are present.

An 'Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth' moral system makes sense when Survival Conditions are brutal enough to warrant such an approach. Does it make as much sense for places with a functional Justice system? Not so much.

Morality being more or less well adapted to the Survival Conditions that are present seems like a better way to look at the issue. At the same time, we can recognize that not all Survival Conditions are equally conducive to human flourishing and happiness. This allows for Morality to be highly Contextual without misconstruing every type of Moral system as "equal".

Edited June 4, 2021 by DocWatts

[TreyMoney]

Thanks for your reply @Godhead 

I agree with you that rape is wrong relative to the value of personal autonomy over one's body.

But, I argue that personal autonomy over one's body is a universal value, valued by all human beings.

No human being wants their personal autonomy over their body violated. If they do want it, then it is volitional / voluntary and not a violation.

Of course, a person can value their autonomy respected, and not value the autonomy of others, however I submit that this is the fundamental immoral value: wanting others to respect your personal autonomy, but not respecting the personal autonomy of others in return.

The amoral position would be might makes might, strongest survive, war of all against all, law of the jungle, etc.

The immoral position would be wanting others to respect your autonomy, but refusing to respect the autonomy of others in return.

The moral position would be wanting others to respect your autonomy, and respecting the autonomy of others in return.

[Godhead]

10 minutes ago, TreyMoney said:

But, I argue that personal autonomy over one's body is a universal value, valued by all human beings.

Then why does rape exist? 

Your position is basically "Most people agree on one thing, so everyone else is evil and immoral.". This might be true in your moral framework, but other people have a different moral framework. They might even accuse you of being evil. You probably would argue that your made up framework is better than their made up framework. And hey, you might even be correct. But that still doesn't make your made up framework true for everyone. 

10 minutes ago, TreyMoney said:

No human being wants their personal autonomy over their body violated. If they do want it, then it is volitional / voluntary and not a violation.

Tell that to all the masochists on this planet 

24 minutes ago, TreyMoney said:

The moral position would be wanting others to respect your autonomy, and respecting the autonomy of others in return.

That is really just your 21st-century privileged 1st world opinion. How is a country going to survive in the middle east for example if they don't have the power to inscribe people into the army? That certainly would be an infringement on someone's autonomy if you ask me. 

You have mentioned spiral dynamics before. Shouldn't the fact that there are different 'levels' of morality be enough proof that the same morality doesn't apply for everyone? 

Your morality is based on the values that you have. Other people have different values. So other people have a different morality. I don't get how this is so hard to comprehend. 

[TreyMoney]

Rape exists, because sometimes human animals value sex/abuse over respecting the autonomy of the person that is object of their desire. Agree?

Then the rapist can justify their actions in 1 of 3 ways

1. Might makes right, the strong have the right to rape others. If I am stronger than someone, I can rape them if I choose. If others are stronger then me, they can rape me if they choose. This is the amoral stance. It is a consistent stance. One set of rules for all.

2. It is ok for me to enforce my will upon others, but it is not ok for others to enforce their will upon me. This is the immoral stance. It is an inconsistent stance. One set of rules for my behavior, but different set of rules for behavior of others.

3. It is neither ok for me to enforce my will upon others, nor is it ok for others to enforce their will upon me. This is the moral stance. It is a consistent stance. One set of rules for all.

1 is animal. 2 is selfish. 3 is moral.

It is not a 21st century opinion. The golden rule "Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated" has been around since the dawn of civilization.