4 ms·

I disagree. Moral relativism is very much a thing. But it's just a muddled matter. To me, "moral relativism" just means the recognition that different societie

I disagree. Moral relativism is very much a thing. But it's just a muddled matter. To me, "moral relativism" just means the recognition that different societies had and have different moral ideas, and that even within a single society rules are murky and fluid, and often outright undefined. Pretty much any moral rule you can name has been proudly broken. Eg, torture? Take Abu Ghraib for instance. Not only was it done, but it was done proudly, with selfies taken for remembering the "good times" later. I find that on the long term the discussion tends to coalesce towards children. Well, in most wars out there children suffered from it. Even in WWII, you can bet that there was an American or Russian bomb that killed a German child, and you won't find a lot of either feeling all that conflicted about their actions. The atomic bombs are a tad controversial, but still find plenty proponents of that the horrific slow deaths they inflicted on quite a few people (including children) were in the end for the greater good. So far I think about the closest to an effective "objective moral rule" I've heard is that it's immoral to torture children for fun. But when I think of it that's almost a tautology -- It works out to "It's immoral to cause harm without a good reason", more or less. Or, if the objection here is that a given individual finds their own code as rigid and unyielding, I don't think that's really true either. Amazing horrors are committed by soldiers in wars even well outside of their own direct duty, and moral compromises of all sorts have been made for the sake of diplomacy.

LudwigNagasena 3y ago
> To me, "moral relativism" just means the recognition that different societies had and have different moral ideas, and that even within a single society rules are murky and fluid, and often outright undefined. That’s just a sociological trick. You redefine X to mean “what people think X is” and come to “profound” conclusions. That’s like saying that the laws of the universe has changed when Einstein invented relativity. Moral relativism is, for example, when you think that being a slave owner in 1800 in the US wouldn’t be bad but being a slave owner in 2023 in the US is bad because of specific cultural background that is different then and now. It’s not about people disagreeing on what constitutes bad actions or conditions per se. Everyone understands that people disagree on stuff. It doesn’t make one a moral relativist in any useful notion of that word.
- dale_glass 3y ago
  > That’s just a sociological trick. You redefine X to mean “what people think X is” and come to “profound” conclusions. That’s like saying that the laws of the universe has changed when Einstein invented relativity. That's exactly what you get under "objective" morality though. Everyone agrees "murder" is bad. Not everyone agrees on what "murder" means exactly. You don't have to try very hard to find people apparently just itching to kill a home invader in righteously retributive justice, or announcing the desire of going to the border to shoot trespassers. > Moral relativism is, for example, when you think that being a slave owner in 1800 in the US wouldn’t be bad but being a slave owner in 2023 in the US is bad because of specific cultural background that is different then and now. In a lot of circumstances, yes, that's indeed how the world truly works. Morality indeed can change over time, for instance using a lot of water on watering your lawn has very different moral scores depending on whether there's a drought going on or not. So it was perfectly moral 3 years ago and now it suddenly isn't. Regarding slavery, you have to recognize that international deals involve quite a lot of interaction with countries where people have far less rights than we do -- and this is one of the underlying reasons why we buy stuff from them.
  - LudwigNagasena 3y ago
    > That's exactly what you get under "objective" morality though. Everyone agrees "murder" is bad. Not everyone agrees on what "murder" means exactly. I don’t see how it is exactly what you get. It doesn’t matter what everyone agrees or disagrees on. The point of moral objectivism is that doesn’t matter what people think morality is in general just like it doesn’t matter what you think about the laws of physics—they are still out there. To oversimplify it: Moral objectivism: laws of morality ~ laws of physics: something that exists regardless of what you think about it Moral relativism: laws of morality ~ rules of football: it is good or bad to do something only by nature of social conventions and views Using lots of water to grow cannabis instead of crops during a drought is bad because it could be allocated more efficiently to feed the poor — moral objectivism Using lots of water to grow cannabis instead of crops during a drought may be good or bad depending on whether people around you care about the poor — moral relativism
effed3 3y ago
>Pretty much any moral rule you can name has been proudly broken. Eg, torture? >Take Abu Ghraib for instance. Not only was it done, but it was done proudly, with >selfies taken for remembering the "good times" later" Sure, can happen, but THIS was recognized as a CRIME by the -culture- we have, and some individuals forget/broken/ignored! And a decadent society/culture can be flooed with this also, and loose the capacity to condems this. I don't mix single fact/events with the main argument, the organized/ritual/specific use of the -force- is universal in quite al cultures, is buiding some kind of order in the chaos, the uncontrolled violence is a crime in quite same every culture, because is disrupting the order.
manicennui 3y ago
Recognizing that different cultures have different morals isn't moral relativism; that is simple observation. One must also believe that more than one set of morals can be right or that no one is right or wrong.
- lossolo 3y ago
  > One must also believe that more than one set of morals can be right or that no one is right or wrong. Exactly. There is no universal right or wrong, it's all relative based on hierarchical system of values in every society.

LudwigNagasena 3y ago

> To me, "moral relativism" just means the recognition that different societies had and have different moral ideas, and that even within a single society rules are murky and fluid, and often outright undefined. That’s just a sociological trick. You redefine X to mean “what people think X is” and come to “profound” conclusions. That’s like saying that the laws of the universe has changed when Einstein invented relativity. Moral relativism is, for example, when you think that being a slave owner in 1800 in the US wouldn’t be bad but being a slave owner in 2023 in the US is bad because of specific cultural background that is different then and now. It’s not about people disagreeing on what constitutes bad actions or conditions per se. Everyone understands that people disagree on stuff. It doesn’t make one a moral relativist in any useful notion of that word.

dale_glass 3y ago
> That’s just a sociological trick. You redefine X to mean “what people think X is” and come to “profound” conclusions. That’s like saying that the laws of the universe has changed when Einstein invented relativity. That's exactly what you get under "objective" morality though. Everyone agrees "murder" is bad. Not everyone agrees on what "murder" means exactly. You don't have to try very hard to find people apparently just itching to kill a home invader in righteously retributive justice, or announcing the desire of going to the border to shoot trespassers. > Moral relativism is, for example, when you think that being a slave owner in 1800 in the US wouldn’t be bad but being a slave owner in 2023 in the US is bad because of specific cultural background that is different then and now. In a lot of circumstances, yes, that's indeed how the world truly works. Morality indeed can change over time, for instance using a lot of water on watering your lawn has very different moral scores depending on whether there's a drought going on or not. So it was perfectly moral 3 years ago and now it suddenly isn't. Regarding slavery, you have to recognize that international deals involve quite a lot of interaction with countries where people have far less rights than we do -- and this is one of the underlying reasons why we buy stuff from them.
- LudwigNagasena 3y ago
  > That's exactly what you get under "objective" morality though. Everyone agrees "murder" is bad. Not everyone agrees on what "murder" means exactly. I don’t see how it is exactly what you get. It doesn’t matter what everyone agrees or disagrees on. The point of moral objectivism is that doesn’t matter what people think morality is in general just like it doesn’t matter what you think about the laws of physics—they are still out there. To oversimplify it: Moral objectivism: laws of morality ~ laws of physics: something that exists regardless of what you think about it Moral relativism: laws of morality ~ rules of football: it is good or bad to do something only by nature of social conventions and views Using lots of water to grow cannabis instead of crops during a drought is bad because it could be allocated more efficiently to feed the poor — moral objectivism Using lots of water to grow cannabis instead of crops during a drought may be good or bad depending on whether people around you care about the poor — moral relativism

effed3 3y ago

>Pretty much any moral rule you can name has been proudly broken. Eg, torture? >Take Abu Ghraib for instance. Not only was it done, but it was done proudly, with >selfies taken for remembering the "good times" later" Sure, can happen, but THIS was recognized as a CRIME by the -culture- we have, and some individuals forget/broken/ignored! And a decadent society/culture can be flooed with this also, and loose the capacity to condems this. I don't mix single fact/events with the main argument, the organized/ritual/specific use of the -force- is universal in quite al cultures, is buiding some kind of order in the chaos, the uncontrolled violence is a crime in quite same every culture, because is disrupting the order.

manicennui 3y ago

Recognizing that different cultures have different morals isn't moral relativism; that is simple observation. One must also believe that more than one set of morals can be right or that no one is right or wrong.

lossolo 3y ago
> One must also believe that more than one set of morals can be right or that no one is right or wrong. Exactly. There is no universal right or wrong, it's all relative based on hierarchical system of values in every society.