Moral Relativism

[King Doctor]

morality has a set standard of right and wrong just like mathematics or physics. Moral right can be proven.

I'm finding this thread very interesting so far, but it seems to me as if all of the other (highly intelligent) questions that have been raised so far are kind of jumping the gun.

After all, given that this thread started out with the assertion that morality is absolute and can be judged by a set of pre-defined rules that are not open to argument; isn't it important for Gator to start out by proving this statement (that morality is absolute) and directing us towards this, apparently tangibly recognisable, set of standards that he asserts exists? Isn't that the obvious first step that we need to take before we can go any further.

Y'know, because if G can point to some kind of foundation for this absolute moral code that he asserts exist, then we can all happily start debating its validity and authority. But, if as I suspect might become the case, he just tells us that, at the root of it all, it's just his opinion that morals are absolute and that he believes they are absolute in a particular way, then pretty much everything else in this thread will be a sideshow as we'll all just be stuck in Square One shouting our respective opinions at each another again.

It's not that this isn't a very interesting topic; but in my experience it usually ends up with a camp of people saying "it's just obvious that Action-X is bad, no argument", and another saying "we don't disagree that it's bad, but that's just our shared opinion on it; our agreement doesn't make that opinion right in any absolute sense, it's still just an opinion"; because nobody ever stops to question where the absolute originates from and how it can be tested by any other means than people's opinions.

[PLAYER57832]

The real truth is that if you dig deep enough, just about every moral is relative. The classic is cannibalism. This is pretty universally considered wrong. Yet, we know from survival situations that sometimes that can be the only real option. Most of us would not go so far (we hope) as to actually kill, but ... And, in New Guinea.. they practiced up into modern times (some say they still do), partly because there just is little protein there.

NOW, this doesn't meant there is no such thing as universal values. Most of the extreme exceptions just don't occur in normal society. However, we have to be very, very, very careful about saying things are "universal". Folks who take this track, blaming societies ills on "moral relativism", usually want to replace it with what they feel is correct. Unless very, very broad this just does not cooincide with what society, as a whole believes and therefore, rather eliminates the idea of those being "universal".

Too often, such "unversal rules" START OK, start very broad and legitimate, but then, as more and more exceptions or debates over meanings come up, wind up becoming complexes of laws such as we have today. AND, too often things that are fully "practical" (i.e. which side of the road we drive upon, color of stop and go, etc.) Two classic examples are the 10 commandments morphing into the whole of Judaic law, the Constitution morphing into our whole plethora of laws.

[pimpdave]

Double ninja edit: Agh, I know we're just going to get in a fit about definitions here, like always. To me, the definition of an opinion means that it cannot be disproved. If it is disprovable, it is not an opinion.

That's just like, your opinion, man.

[tzor]

I would tend to argue that moral relativism is “sloppy.” I believe that it is possible to establish a solid absolute moral structure. That structure can be used to map onto various situations resulting in a spectrum of outcomes. (In other words not all outcomes are clear cut good or bad situations.) The fact that I discovered this through AD&D apologetics is mildly ironic but it actually makes sense.

Basically put, the structure revolves around 1st and 3rd person priorities or you might say the logical extension of the Golden Rule (to treat the 3rd person as you want to be treated by the 3rd person). That which is “good” places the 3rd person above the 1st person. That which is “evil” places the 1st person above the 3rd person.

(I would go on, but this thread is not about this structure.)

Thus moral relativism is “evil” if one places ones own relative morals above that of another. It is “good” if one places someone else’s relative morals above that of their own. More often than not, it is the former, and moral relativism is simply a lame excuse to get away with anything.

[PLAYER57832]

I would tend to argue that moral relativism is “sloppy.” I believe that it is possible to establish a solid absolute moral structure. That structure can be used to map onto various situations resulting in a spectrum of outcomes. (In other words not all outcomes are clear cut good or bad situations.) The fact that I discovered this through AD&D apologetics is mildly ironic but it actually makes sense.

Basically put, the structure revolves around 1st and 3rd person priorities or you might say the logical extension of the Golden Rule (to treat the 3rd person as you want to be treated by the 3rd person). That which is “good” places the 3rd person above the 1st person. That which is “evil” places the 1st person above the 3rd person.

(I would go on, but this thread is not about this structure.)

Thus moral relativism is “evil” if one places ones own relative morals above that of another. It is “good” if one places someone else’s relative morals above that of their own. More often than not, it is the former, and moral relativism is simply a lame excuse to get away with anything.

Again, you fall into the trap.

In a very, very broad sense, what you say might make sense. Except.. for any specific "rule", there will be so many exceptions that the rule, essentially, becomes void.

[PLAYER57832]

Interesting...I'm very curious what justification could be used for stating that it is "right" to cheat on a high school test. Care to take a shot at that one?

The problem here is that "cheating" is a loaded word. If something is OK, it is by definition, not cheating. At any rate, you have to step back from that to see. A lot of this gets into the whole concept of indpendence in education, how we approach problems and testing.

I will give you an example explained to me in a workshop. A lot of Native American kids have gotten in trouble for cheating (forgive me, I cannot remember the tribes in question). To the teacher, it is important to see what each child knows. That is the purpose of homework, the test, etc. (in this example.. I realize there can be other purposes) So, in that context, a child doing another's homework, "helping too much" is "wrong", is "cheating". Yet, going home, many of those kids would be told "help your cousin". Working together was seen, in their culture, as the highest goal. If they "succeeded", but their cousin/sibling, etc failed, then they failed.

In a somewhat related example, US students, at least in college (often in high school), expect to use one microscope per student. If they have to share, they will take turns. In much of Europe and Japan, they actually work together. Three and four students will all look together at the same scope and compare information. They see the sharing as part of the learning.

Often times, US schools simply set up situations so that anything but independed work/thinking, etc. is considered "cheating". Ironically, this is sometimes even true when students are "encouraged" to work in groups on projects. Some teachers do grade the group as a unit, for example, but some grade individually, feeling that not all will contribute equally. Also, even if it is a group project, it is almost never a whole class project (exception exist, but are rare).

This is part of why that whole bit of moral relativism is a bit of a red herring. What is moral or not really and truly depends upon the entire setting.

[tzor]

Again, you fall into the trap.

In a very, very broad sense, what you say might make sense. Except.. for any specific "rule", there will be so many exceptions that the rule, essentially, becomes void.

If you say so. I would tend to disagree.

[PLAYER57832]

Again, you fall into the trap.

In a very, very broad sense, what you say might make sense. Except.. for any specific "rule", there will be so many exceptions that the rule, essentially, becomes void.

If you say so. I would tend to disagree.

Pick any one example... and we can see.

[Woodruff]

Interesting...I'm very curious what justification could be used for stating that it is "right" to cheat on a high school test. Care to take a shot at that one?

The problem here is that "cheating" is a loaded word. If something is OK, it is by definition, not cheating. At any rate, you have to step back from that to see. A lot of this gets into the whole concept of independence in education, how we approach problems and testing.

No, it doesn't. It gets into the moral implications of whether something is "right" or "wrong" in our current school system setup and I would like to know the justification for the general statement of "cheat on a test" being a "right" instead of a "wrong". This isn't a difficult concept.

[Woodruff]

I actually believe you've all missed the point of what gatoraubrey is trying to say.

If I understand things correctly, she isn't saying that exceptions don't exist, she's saying that those exceptions are DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. That for EVERY SPECIFIC SITUATION, there is a moral right.

She's also saying that cultural and personal differences don't matter because there is some UNIVERSAL "right", EVEN IF WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO IT YET. Thus, asking for "proof" cannot happen because "we may not have gotten there yet".

She isn't saying she has the answers to the "right", she's saying that there is one. Similar to the opinion that it used to be considered "right" to own slaves but now it is not...as we evolved we came to this greater understanding of that specific "right".

Now, I may well be misunderstanding things, as it's not something I've ever considered. But I believe that's how she is approaching the subject.

[PLAYER57832]

Interesting...I'm very curious what justification could be used for stating that it is "right" to cheat on a high school test. Care to take a shot at that one?

The problem here is that "cheating" is a loaded word. If something is OK, it is by definition, not cheating. At any rate, you have to step back from that to see. A lot of this gets into the whole concept of independence in education, how we approach problems and testing.

No, it doesn't. It gets into the moral implications of whether something is "right" or "wrong" in our current school system setup and I would like to know the justification for the general statement of "cheat on a test" being a "right" instead of a "wrong". This isn't a difficult concept.

First, define "cheating". Then explain why it is wrong. Simply saying "our system is set up that way" is not good enough.

[PLAYER57832]

I actually believe you've all missed the point of what gatoraubrey is trying to say.

If I understand things correctly, she isn't saying that exceptions don't exist, she's saying that those exceptions are DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. That for EVERY SPECIFIC SITUATION, there is a moral right.

I used to believe this, but no longer do. There are too many cases where it just is not true, once you go past our basic upbringings, anyhow. AND, sometimes it is good to at least entertain that (in fiction, for example), because a lot of what we often just take for granted and "assume" just really is not so, when studied or viewed with more objectivity.

She's also saying that cultural and personal differences don't matter because there is some UNIVERSAL "right", EVEN IF WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO IT YET. Thus, asking for "proof" cannot happen because "we may not have gotten there yet".

She isn't saying she has the answers to the "right", she's saying that there is one. Similar to the opinion that it used to be considered "right" to own slaves but now it is not...as we evolved we came to this greater understanding of that specific "right".

I believe most of us understand that point well, we just disagree.

But, let me back up a bit. Ultimately, any Christian believes there IS an ultimate good, namely God. God's plan/"desires", etc. Christians, Jews, etc. ... we all have a certain set of standards we consider "fundamental", even if we disagree at times in what they imply.

However, when you broaden that to all humans and bring that down to human terms, it gets far more complicated. There is no "ultimate" moral correctness, because ultimately, there are just too many variables involved -- nearly infinite.
This is, ultimately, one reason why some kind of morality/religion/belief system is almost required by human beings. We want to understand, have rules, know what is and is not OK. We are not terribly comfortable with complete ambiguity. However, the shape of those things, throughout time, has varied a great deal and still varies now.

Even slavery.. there are people who see no issue with it, who feel it is morally correct because, in their view, its all about power and control. Most of the rest of us would call that evil. Yet, ironically enough, that person might actually be doing less real damage than, say the factory owner who simply decides that a few of those safety or environmental rules are just "too burdensome". Yet... we consider the first to be almost universally wrong, yet many here would find a way to excuse the second, without really seeing it as evil.

[Woodruff]

Interesting...I'm very curious what justification could be used for stating that it is "right" to cheat on a high school test. Care to take a shot at that one?

The problem here is that "cheating" is a loaded word. If something is OK, it is by definition, not cheating. At any rate, you have to step back from that to see. A lot of this gets into the whole concept of independence in education, how we approach problems and testing.

No, it doesn't. It gets into the moral implications of whether something is "right" or "wrong" in our current school system setup and I would like to know the justification for the general statement of "cheat on a test" being a "right" instead of a "wrong". This isn't a difficult concept.

First, define "cheating". Then explain why it is wrong. Simply saying "our system is set up that way" is not good enough.

Look, I know you like to get all psychobabble, but this has nothing at all to do with the claptrap. I am saying that I want to know the justification FOR THOSE STUDENTS for the general statement of "cheat on a test" being a "right" instead of a "wrong". This is a very straightforward question, and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't try to derail it, thank you very much.

[Woodruff]

I actually believe you've all missed the point of what gatoraubrey is trying to say.

If I understand things correctly, she isn't saying that exceptions don't exist, she's saying that those exceptions are DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. That for EVERY SPECIFIC SITUATION, there is a moral right.

I used to believe this, but no longer do. There are too many cases where it just is not true, once you go past our basic upbringings, anyhow. AND, sometimes it is good to at least entertain that (in fiction, for example), because a lot of what we often just take for granted and "assume" just really is not so, when studied or viewed with more objectivity.

She's also saying that cultural and personal differences don't matter because there is some UNIVERSAL "right", EVEN IF WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO IT YET. Thus, asking for "proof" cannot happen because "we may not have gotten there yet".

She isn't saying she has the answers to the "right", she's saying that there is one. Similar to the opinion that it used to be considered "right" to own slaves but now it is not...as we evolved we came to this greater understanding of that specific "right".

I believe most of us understand that point well, we just disagree.

But, let me back up a bit. Ultimately, any Christian believes there IS an ultimate good, namely God. God's plan/"desires", etc. Christians, Jews, etc. ... we all have a certain set of standards we consider "fundamental", even if we disagree at times in what they imply.

However, when you broaden that to all humans and bring that down to human terms, it gets far more complicated. There is no "ultimate" moral correctness, because ultimately, there are just too many variables involved -- nearly infinite.
This is, ultimately, one reason why some kind of morality/religion/belief system is almost required by human beings. We want to understand, have rules, know what is and is not OK. We are not terribly comfortable with complete ambiguity. However, the shape of those things, throughout time, has varied a great deal and still varies now.

Even slavery.. there are people who see no issue with it, who feel it is morally correct because, in their view, its all about power and control. Most of the rest of us would call that evil. Yet, ironically enough, that person might actually be doing less real damage than, say the factory owner who simply decides that a few of those safety or environmental rules are just "too burdensome". Yet... we consider the first to be almost universally wrong, yet many here would find a way to excuse the second, without really seeing it as evil.

All of this is irrelevant to the point. Individual perspectives are irrelevant to the point. It doesn't matter "how someone sees it". For every given specific situation, there is a "right" and a "wrong".

Note that I don't agree with the concept myself (I very much do believe there are situations that have no right or wrong answer...in fact, I use some in my classroom)...however, I do believe I understand what she's getting at.

(God, I hope "Aubrey" is a girl not a guy...been calling "her" "she" this whole thread...)

[PLAYER57832]

Interesting...I'm very curious what justification could be used for stating that it is "right" to cheat on a high school test. Care to take a shot at that one?

The problem here is that "cheating" is a loaded word. If something is OK, it is by definition, not cheating. At any rate, you have to step back from that to see. A lot of this gets into the whole concept of independence in education, how we approach problems and testing.

No, it doesn't. It gets into the moral implications of whether something is "right" or "wrong" in our current school system setup and I would like to know the justification for the general statement of "cheat on a test" being a "right" instead of a "wrong". This isn't a difficult concept.

First, define "cheating". Then explain why it is wrong. Simply saying "our system is set up that way" is not good enough.

Look, I know you like to get all psychobabble, but this has nothing at all to do with the claptrap. I am saying that I want to know the justification FOR THOSE STUDENTS for the general statement of "cheat on a test" being a "right" instead of a "wrong". This is a very straightforward question, and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't try to derail it, thank you very much.

Except I am not derailing or getting into what you call "psycobabble" at all. I am explaining why your basic premise is incorrect. See, your premise is only correct because you already define "cheating" as something morally wrong... ergo, its a circular argument. Eliminate that and get down to the details and then it very much does become a question.

[PLAYER57832]

All of this is irrelevant to the point. Individual perspectives are irrelevant to the point. It doesn't matter "how someone sees it". For every given specific situation, there is a "right" and a "wrong".

Except, that IS the whole point. If there is more than one way to see it, then it is not a universal right or wrong.

Note that I don't agree with the concept myself (I very much do believe there are situations that have no right or wrong answer...in fact, I use some in my classroom)...however, I do believe I understand what she's getting at.

(God, I hope "Aubrey" is a girl not a guy...been calling "her" "she" this whole thread...)

As an intellectual excercise, I have tried to carry this to some fair extremes. This is why I say there just is no univeral right or wrong. Understand, when I say that, I speak in the context of writing science fiction/fantasy and such. I am most definitely not speaking about what I truly believe. Of course, my values are Christian.

[tzor]

No, it doesn't. It gets into the moral implications of whether something is "right" or "wrong" in our current school system setup and I would like to know the justification for the general statement of "cheat on a test" being a "right" instead of a "wrong". This isn't a difficult concept.

Chearting on a test, in general, is generally wrong. It's not obvious why but the reason has to do with grade inflation. Let's say that a given score implies a certain value in terms of knowledge and understanding (a level that can and often is used to determine worth and in effect pay). If a person cheats on the score the average for that score is increased (depending on the cheater) which in turn degrades the value for everyone else. Thus cheating on a test invevitably is stealing the scores of everyone else for personal gain. Since it places the self above others it is therefore wrong.

[PLAYER57832]

No, it doesn't. It gets into the moral implications of whether something is "right" or "wrong" in our current school system setup and I would like to know the justification for the general statement of "cheat on a test" being a "right" instead of a "wrong". This isn't a difficult concept.

Chearting on a test, in general, is generally wrong. It's not obvious why but the reason has to do with grade inflation. Let's say that a given score implies a certain value in terms of knowledge and understanding (a level that can and often is used to determine worth and in effect pay). If a person cheats on the score the average for that score is increased (depending on the cheater) which in turn degrades the value for everyone else. Thus cheating on a test invevitably is stealing the scores of everyone else for personal gain. Since it places the self above others it is therefore wrong.

Except, you have not actually defined cheating, either.

I will take one example -- cheating might be getting answers from another student on a test. It is not just wrong because of grade inflation(that' sort of an esoteric concept that might not even matter), it is wrong because the test is designed to determine what you do and do not know. If you merely take the answer from another student, then you don't know the answer. This causes harm down the road when it is assumed, because you passed the test, you knew something... only you don't.

HOWEVER, the problem with that is multitudinal. Is the assessment even correct? Does a test really show what a student knows or simply how good a test-taker the student is? If a student borrows and answer, does that mean they don't learn it that way, also? Then, why even have a test? Why is it important to know certain information (of course, I can provide plenty of answers, but I am playing devil's advocate here)?

Finally, you get into Tzors answer.. that is just plain wrong for a very big reason. Namely, tests really don't have any valid comparison from one class to the next , particularly when the curve is used. There might have been a time when tests were few and there was a fairly universal pool of knowledge, but not any longer. One student can get an A and know less than another student in another class who got a "C".

So, the real truth is that today, many students see, because it is proven to them again and again, that grades and such are not truly equitable, really don't assess what they are supposed to, they might as well cheat and get the benefit of the grade.
I am not saying I consider that correct, but I am saying they do. And, when you start out with a system that is so unreasonable (as school tests and grades too often can be today), then it becomes hard to convince them otherwise, hard to teach ethics and not to cheat when they see for themselves that there is little real benefit to not cheating, and even (too often ) not real penalty for cheating, even when it is considered morally wrong by others.

[jonesthecurl]

It is morally wrong to directly cause physical harm to another person, unless in the form of self defense or mutual hostility.

I defy you to find a situation where this doesn't hold true.

Easy: surgery.

[PLAYER57832]

It is morally wrong to directly cause physical harm to another person, unless in the form of self defense or mutual hostility.

I defy you to find a situation where this doesn't hold true.

Easy: surgery.

I was going to say tattoos, but your answer is better.

[PLAYER57832]

Chearting on a test, in general, is generally wrong. It's not obvious why but the reason has to do with grade inflation. Let's say that a given score implies a certain value in terms of knowledge and understanding (a level that can and often is used to determine worth and in effect pay). If a person cheats on the score the average for that score is increased (depending on the cheater) which in turn degrades the value for everyone else. Thus cheating on a test invevitably is stealing the scores of everyone else for personal gain. Since it places the self above others it is therefore wrong.

I addressed this together with Woodruffs, but the big problem is that tests really are not "straight measures" at all. So, one person cheating has very little real impact.

As for the "putting self above"-- that assumes that the entire system is valid. Many would say it is just not.

[Woodruff]

The problem here is that "cheating" is a loaded word. If something is OK, it is by definition, not cheating. At any rate, you have to step back from that to see. A lot of this gets into the whole concept of independence in education, how we approach problems and testing.

No, it doesn't. It gets into the moral implications of whether something is "right" or "wrong" in our current school system setup and I would like to know the justification for the general statement of "cheat on a test" being a "right" instead of a "wrong". This isn't a difficult concept.

First, define "cheating". Then explain why it is wrong. Simply saying "our system is set up that way" is not good enough.

Look, I know you like to get all psychobabble, but this has nothing at all to do with the claptrap. I am saying that I want to know the justification FOR THOSE STUDENTS for the general statement of "cheat on a test" being a "right" instead of a "wrong". This is a very straightforward question, and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't try to derail it, thank you very much.

Except I am not derailing or getting into what you call "psycobabble" at all. I am explaining why your basic premise is incorrect. See, your premise is only correct because you already define "cheating" as something morally wrong... ergo, its a circular argument. Eliminate that and get down to the details and then it very much does become a question.

Perhaps you're having some difficulty with the phrase "in our current school system setup"? That places the definition on it. So...if you don't have anything useful to add to this part of the discussion...

[Woodruff]

All of this is irrelevant to the point. Individual perspectives are irrelevant to the point. It doesn't matter "how someone sees it". For every given specific situation, there is a "right" and a "wrong".

Except, that IS the whole point. If there is more than one way to see it, then it is not a universal right or wrong.

That doesn't even make basic sense. That's exactly like claiming that opinions override facts.

[PLAYER57832]

Except I am not derailing or getting into what you call "psycobabble" at all. I am explaining why your basic premise is incorrect. See, your premise is only correct because you already define "cheating" as something morally wrong... ergo, its a circular argument. Eliminate that and get down to the details and then it very much does become a question.

Perhaps you're having some difficulty with the phrase "in our current school system setup"? That places the definition on it. So...if you don't have anything useful to add to this part of the discussion...

It is the crux of the argument. You wish to assert that there is an ultimate right for any given situation. I am saying that is not always true. Part of the reason it is not true is that for it to be true, you have to make a whole series of unrequired assumptions.

Even so, there is a very, very simple answer.. it is OK to cheat if the teacher is cheating in the test.

[PLAYER57832]

All of this is irrelevant to the point. Individual perspectives are irrelevant to the point. It doesn't matter "how someone sees it". For every given specific situation, there is a "right" and a "wrong".

Except, that IS the whole point. If there is more than one way to see it, then it is not a universal right or wrong.

That doesn't even make basic sense. That's exactly like claiming that opinions override facts.

No, because in morality there are no facts, truly, its all opinion. And again, that is rather the point.