4 ms·

Technically yes - what makes your opinion on how life should be more correct than their opinion?

marvin 4y ago
Well, this line of reasoning will end up going Godwin in a hurry. But for entertainment value, to make a different argument against moral relativism: A higher proportion of people from Qatar would like to e.g. live in Europe than the proportion of Europeans who would like to live in Qatar, and vastly higher if we take relative social standing into account. I'm sure there are plenty of ethical questions where a hypothetical, neutral outside observer would have trouble choosing. There are more ethical question where the neutral outside observer would easily be able to discriminate what cultural traits they preferred, while at the same time understanding why those sub-optimal cultural traits came to be and play a role in that particular society. Imagine sexual mores in a society with no birth control, lots of hard labor and the preference for peaceful succession due to early accumulation of capital (farms), for instance. It's easy to understand what role traditional and restrictive morals has in such a society, while at the same time acknowledging that living within the morals of such society would be a giant step down in quality of life. So that's the complex argument. But that all ethics is generally speaking relative from a human perspective, can be trivially disproven by pointing out ethical standards that almost all societies except those that have them will find repugnant. Consider e.g. genital mutilation or institutionalized child abuse.
- claudiawerner 4y ago
  To play the other side a little, it's interesting to mention that the relative uniformity of some moral statements across time and cultures has also been deployed in support of moral anti-realist arguments, or at least evolutionary debunking arguments. I can't find the paper at the moment, but I don't think it's accurate to use the uniformity of some moral views as an argument against moral relativism, for the same reasons why you can't use the disparity of some moral views between cultures as an argument for moral relativism. The fact that some number of people agree on some ethical standards, even almost everyone, does not do any work to prove their accuracy outside human opinion and experience, much in the same way almost all societies except those who believed in the Abrahamic God found others who did not to be (repugnant/heathens/blasthemers/barbarians/baby killers).
dTal 4y ago
As an abstract argument, this is an intellectual dead end, if "having a moral opinion" is to be a thing. As a concrete argument specifically dealing with Qatar, there is a very long list of pragmatic reasons why the death penalty for adultery is Bad, assuming reasonable terminal values like "happiness is good".
- dotancohen 4y ago
  There are even more pragmatic reasons why discouraging adultery, even on penalty of death, is Good. For instance, knowing for certain who your parents and who their parents are, in areas with little possibility of inter-family interaction and thus the real need to prevent inbreeding. Not to talk about preventing the spread of disease where medical care is not available. This, in addition to the absolute impossibility of raising a child without a father in a tent while tending to the herd and fields all day.

Well, this line of reasoning will end up going Godwin in a hurry. But for entertainment value, to make a different argument against moral relativism: A higher proportion of people from Qatar would like to e.g. live in Europe than the proportion of Europeans who would like to live in Qatar, and vastly higher if we take relative social standing into account. I'm sure there are plenty of ethical questions where a hypothetical, neutral outside observer would have trouble choosing. There are more ethical question where the neutral outside observer would easily be able to discriminate what cultural traits they preferred, while at the same time understanding why those sub-optimal cultural traits came to be and play a role in that particular society. Imagine sexual mores in a society with no birth control, lots of hard labor and the preference for peaceful succession due to early accumulation of capital (farms), for instance. It's easy to understand what role traditional and restrictive morals has in such a society, while at the same time acknowledging that living within the morals of such society would be a giant step down in quality of life. So that's the complex argument. But that all ethics is generally speaking relative from a human perspective, can be trivially disproven by pointing out ethical standards that almost all societies except those that have them will find repugnant. Consider e.g. genital mutilation or institutionalized child abuse.

claudiawerner 4y ago
To play the other side a little, it's interesting to mention that the relative uniformity of some moral statements across time and cultures has also been deployed in support of moral anti-realist arguments, or at least evolutionary debunking arguments. I can't find the paper at the moment, but I don't think it's accurate to use the uniformity of some moral views as an argument against moral relativism, for the same reasons why you can't use the disparity of some moral views between cultures as an argument for moral relativism. The fact that some number of people agree on some ethical standards, even almost everyone, does not do any work to prove their accuracy outside human opinion and experience, much in the same way almost all societies except those who believed in the Abrahamic God found others who did not to be (repugnant/heathens/blasthemers/barbarians/baby killers).

dTal 4y ago

As an abstract argument, this is an intellectual dead end, if "having a moral opinion" is to be a thing. As a concrete argument specifically dealing with Qatar, there is a very long list of pragmatic reasons why the death penalty for adultery is Bad, assuming reasonable terminal values like "happiness is good".

dotancohen 4y ago
There are even more pragmatic reasons why discouraging adultery, even on penalty of death, is Good. For instance, knowing for certain who your parents and who their parents are, in areas with little possibility of inter-family interaction and thus the real need to prevent inbreeding. Not to talk about preventing the spread of disease where medical care is not available. This, in addition to the absolute impossibility of raising a child without a father in a tent while tending to the herd and fields all day.