Relativism VS. Absoulte

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Um, general consensus of humanity, I guess. That's something I have to go think about now, as that is an aspect of my stand on the subject that I have not really defined as of yet.

[Arathorn]

By saying I am a relative absolutist, I mean to say that I believe there is one true set of morals but that who am I to see and judge exactly what is right and what is wrong about everything in the world. I can only strive for what is most probably the skies but I am bound to the earth and my personal POV until my spirit is freed to move further out.
Hopefully, my symbolism doesn't get in the way of what I'm trying to say.

[mirrille]

"general consenus of humanity"

I don't believe in it. There isn't one. A small segment of the human population (i.e. people who frequent this board) can't even come to a consensus on relativism vs absolutism. How do you expect the larger population to come to a consensus on things that actually matter? (i.e. How to live a life.)

Nope. If this existed, there'd be no need for armies. Keep thinking. This is entertaining.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Good point, Mirrille. So, there is no general consensus of humanity. I said I did need to think on it, didn't I? Besides, I can't judge what is right and wrong for all of humanity, and neither can (IMO) any individual. (oops, that was a judgement!) But I am, as I pointed out before, an idealist who thinks that the ideal is impossible, if that makes sense. Of course we all can't agree on something, that will never happen.

Arathorn-I like your symbolism. And it helps, rather than hinders, your point.

[olsonm]

The only moral absolute is that there are no moral absolutes.
This statement is an inherent contradiction, logically. And that may be the problem. We speak in a logically constructed language and it is possible that this language is inadequate for this discussion.

"For even the very wise cannot see all ends." This cuts both ways my friends.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Any suggestions for a more appropriate language, olsonm?

[olsonm]

Nope.

[Rána Eressëa]

Originally posted by olsonm
"For even the very wise cannot see all ends." This cuts both ways my friends.

Agreed.

[Gildor]

Rogue Elf:

You said to me:

"Calling homosexuals evil is simply intolerant and biased (I'm not saying it's wrong, mind you!). Gays are no different from anyone else." I am sad that you would actually discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation."
"

Why are you sad? If you are truly tolerant, you would tolerate my intolerance and not condemn me for the way I feel?

"I also find it interesting that you, who believe in doing what is right, are furthering hatred and intolerance, while I, who believe in neither, can live with people the way they are. "

First of all, I did not call homosexuals "evil" unless you consider "liars" and "thieves" evil. and, of course since "evil" is a "made up" term anyway, you couldn't think that. I did say that I believe their lifestyle is wrong, and I wouldn't want my children influenced to follow that type of lifestyle.

You said I was furthering "hatred and intolerance". But those terms are fine too, since there is no "wrong". Maybe it's my instincts for survival of the human species that makes me want grandchildren instead of same-sex marriage for my children. (In that case it furthers my happiness and that makes it right...in your book).

(Speaking of intolerance. There are some things we need to be intolerant of...people flying planes full of innocent people into buildings for instance. But that's beside the point) You called me "biased" as if it were a bad thing. How can you say that "biased" is not as right as "non-biased"? In a world of no right or wrong who's to say?

"Perhaps humanity would be happier if we could cast off ideas of "evil" - we wouldn't condemn people anymore. Instead, there would be more wide-spread tolerance and happiness"

If we cast off ideas of evil and nobody ever condemned anybody, it would be grand...if evil didn't exist. It takes more than getting rid of the word to get rid of the idea. If we all lived in one big happy world and nobody ever condemned people do you think everybody would just stop raping, killing, stealing, etc. Do you think the only reason people do these things is because they have been taught they were evil? If we legalize everything and do away with law, do you think people will all settle down and live in peace and harmony?

[FrodoFriend]

Um, Gildor? I said all that, not Rogue Elf. Those are my points! Wahahaha!

Anyway:

As I distinctly said in my post, your opinion that homosexuality is bad is not wrong. I did say it! It was right there, okay! I clearly said you are not wrong. I was merely stating my opinion - and it is an opinion. I'd also like to point out that I do have my own morality, which contains my opinion on homosexuality. It's not that I don't have morals, I just don't believe they're absolute. But since my beliefs are not the topic of this debate, I'm leaving them out of it. For the record, I personally do not believe homosexuality is wrong, and I do believe that intolerance is bad. Once again - THAT IS ONLY MY PERSONAL VIEW. IT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO WHETHER OR NOT MORALS ARE ABSOLUTE. IT WAS MERELY A SIDE-NOTE.
The same thing applies to your second point.

Now that that's cleared up (I hope). . .

I never said all the world's problems would be solved. But I sincerely believe that if people were less quick to condemn each other and more tolerant, we would much less violence and unhappiness. For example - if Bin Laden's Muslim extremists did not hate the U.S., if they tolerated our way of life, they would never have attacked us, and we wouldn't be involved in this war. Race riots wouldn't happen. There would be no violence against gays. It's stuff like this and only this that I'm talking about. Other problems require other solutions. Hope that's clear now.

[Gildor]

Sorry, Frodo friend, I'm just figuring out how to use this message board and in trying to look back and forth I got confused and didn't read carefully...like I should have. They were indeed your posts.

I was wrong to attribute your work to somebody else.

I still believe that some things are wrong, will remain wrong as long as evil exists, and won't change to right. These are not merely customs (which vary from culture to culture and year to year) but principles. I also believe some things are right and will always be right. One of them is the freedom we have to express ourselves and argue on boards like this. Another is grace to apologize when we are wrong.

Sure, the world would be a better place if people were kinder to each other...that is as long as "kind" is "right" but if "kind" becomes wrong...you see where this leads?

[FrodoFriend]

Thanks, Gildor! By the way, I don't think I ever welcomed you to the board. Welcome to Entmoot!
Yes, I see what you mean. I don't want to get rid of "right" and "wrong" or anything. These principles keep us safe and happy, and they're a sign of our intelligence (I think! ). I would never want "kind" to become wrong, and I don't think it ever will, since everyone likes kindness. I just don't believe it's absolute.

Look at it this way (question for everyone): If people didn't exist, would there still be a set right and wrong? That's basically what absolutism means - that there's an unchangeable law not influenced by humans. I don't believe that, that's all. What we take for granted as right and wrong (myself included) are merely mass opinions, and as George Orwell said "Majority does not determine sanity."

In conclusion, I say morals are not absolute, but I still prefer to have them!

[Gildor]

Thanks for the welcome. I've actually been following this board for a while and even posted occasionally over on the "favorite quote" thread. It's just that I wasn't answering anyone there...just posting my favorite passages. I'm usually too busy to post (It's spring break now)but some of my students like this board, and they led me to it when I kept encouraging them to read the books.

One question. Do Elves, Valar, and Ents need kindness too...or is that just a human thing?

[mirrille]

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
Look at it this way (question for everyone): If people didn't exist, would there still be a set right and wrong? That's basically what absolutism means - that there's an unchangeable law not influenced by humans. I don't believe that, that's all. What we take for granted as right and wrong (myself included) are merely mass opinions, and as George Orwell said "Majority does not determine sanity."

In conclusion, I say morals are not absolute, but I still prefer to have them!

Yeah. I'd say that sums up my thoughts on that. Of course morals exist. But mostly because certain people have decided to make some up and use them because it helps organize their society and what-not. What's "fun" is when different groups decide on different rules, or don't think of a rule until a dilemma comes up. Then we get something called "moral ambiguity", which is also "fun", in a headachy kind of way. If things were absolute, then all those ethicists would have to find new jobs.

[Wayfarer]

"It works like this...
You say: 'Ah, yes! Morality! Morality, is an illusion. But we have found out what modes and methods of behavior will preserve the human race alive, in a state of order and good health. This is the standard we are pressing you to adopt. Pray don't mistake us for moralists, we're under entirely new management.'
As if that would help. You're asking that I grant, firstly, that life is preferable to death, order is better than chaos, health is better than sickness, etc, and secondly, that I ought to care about getting these things for the rest of humanity as much as I should like them for myself. And both of these are moral judgements.
Of course, having been conditioned by nature and upbringing in a certain way, I do feel thus about life and others. But your excellent logic has cured my of any penchant for mistaking these feelings for insights into any 'right' or 'truth'. Now that I know my impulse to put others before myself is the same sort of thing as my fondness for cheese-now that it's trancendental pretensions have been exposed for a sham-do you think I shall pay much attention? When it happens to be strong (and it has grown considerably weaker since you enlightened me on it's nature) I suppose I shall obey it.
When it is weak, I shall put my money into cheese.
~C.S. Lewis

If you can't tell, I'm in a good mood today.


Moral Judgements-Relativism vs. Absolutism

A Relativist believes that moral judgements are of the same type as 'I like Tolkien more than Jordan.'

An Absolutist believes that morality is the same as math. 2+2=4 and not 5.

This is simply an illustration. I hope everybody will understand and agree with this (as previous defenitions have been shaky).

Morality opposed to Thought and Emotion

FrodoFriend has said that moral judgements are actually based on what we think/feel, and that they are soley a product of our own desires. But as much as I would like to believe this (my desires tend towards the sadistic sometimes), your argument doesn't hold up. If my morals are based on my feelings, what happens when two desires are in conflict? My previous example (that of a rape) would apply. One desire (lust) conflicts with another (the desire to be a decent guy). It is at this point that my absolutist morality steps in and says 'Hands off.' I'm more than likely to respond 'But I want to! *gollum*' to which my morality replies 'So what?'.

Now, let's say I'm a relativist. My morality may still step in and say 'Hands off.' But when I protest 'But I really want to!', my relativist morals have no choice but to aquiece 'Oh, well, if you really want to...'. Because, if my moral beliefs really are based on what I happen to want at any given moment, they can't stop me from following through on my less attractive appetites.

Now, at this point I'm sure you're thinking "Aha! But the threat of punishment will stop you!" I'm afraid that's completely beside the point. I could, being absolved of any moral responsibility whatsoever, quite easily get away with torture, rape, and murder. Along with theft and arson and anything else that catches my fancy. After all, my crimes would be commited simply because I enjoyed them. No motive. Plenty of time to plan. I could scatter my atrocities across the entire planet. Vary my MO. Trust me, under the circumstances which we've described, there would be very little chance of a killer being caught. Be glad most of us have our morals intact.

Now-to encapsulate. Morals cannot, in fact, be purely subjective. If they were, they would be no more than a statement 'this is what I want.' But a healthy morality is the exact opposite. It says 'I don't care in the slightest what you want. Do this instead.'

Further Objections to the Self Preservation Stance on Morality

" Morals are made up to fulfill instincts for self-preservation and happiness."- FrodoFriend

This seems to be a recurring theme, the idea that we behave in a way that is percieved as 'right' because we're afraid of punishment. The idea seems to be that morals are nescessarily selfish, that we act how we please when we can, and act moral when we can't.

This, my friends is a logical fallicy. It is incredibly simple to find an instance where morality is unselfish. It seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

For example. Let's say the year is 1935, and I'm living under the Nazi Regime in Germany. It's quite obvious that I would put myself at risk by aiding the Jews, and indeed would be in danger for simply not supporting the Nazis. Do you think for a moment that any of us would pretend that it was morally ok? Would your morality let you sit back and do nothing because that's what's best for you? You must answer that question for yourself, but I for one wouldn't hesitate to stand up and say 'this is wrong'.

Suppose we move to a more plausable venue. I get up, put on a jacket and walk down the street. After five minutes, I see an old woman hobbling across the street with a walker, when suddenly a car veers out of control and heads towards her. Of course I do my best to push her out of the way, and am successful, but I am hit myself, leaving me dead or marylyzed. Yes, parylyzed. I sit in the hospital bed and blink my eyes, and have plenty of time to contemplate. I saved someone who would have died soon anyway, and sacrificed my life and happiness to do so. And certainly I can't hope that others would do the same for me, because I'm smart enought not to dive out of the way myself. But I did it anyway, not because it was best for me, but because it was right.

And thus relativism loses this argument. Because morality, which you claim to be purely self-serving, all to often gives no advantage. It simply claims 'this is right' whether or not it's going to get you into trouble.

If morality was truly based on self preservation, I would think is should do a little more to presere one's self.

Further Objections

Let's say, now, that I'm walking down the street (my paralysis having miraculously cured itself) and I see a boy throwing rocks at a house. Chances are I'm going to stop him, even though I have no particular interest in this house, and It's certainly not going to repay me, and the idea that I'd want someone to to the same for me is ludicrious. Why? Because what he's doing is morally wrong, and it would be almost as bad for me to let him continue.

But Why? If my morality simply encompassed what I felt, or what was good for me, I would have no reason. But it doesn't. It dictates that some things are right, and the rest are wrong, and that this is not right. Whether it gets me anything is hardly a consideration.

Self Contradiction

I couldn't help laughing at you a bit, FrodoFriend. You go to great lengths to rationalize your idea that no morality is right or wrong, and then you jump all over Gildor for something you thought he implied.

It gets better. You claim not to simply agree that nything is right and then you call someone 'intolarent', 'biased', and accuse them of 'hatred'. And you expect us to all simply agree with you that these things are somehow bad. Isn't that a moral judgement?

And ooh, to top it all off, after all your claims that Morality is self serving and arises from what we want, you absolutely jump to defend homosexuals from some imagined slight. Now, if you had some reason to be personally offended (do you, FrodoFriend?), or if you had some logical arguement, I'm sure gildor (and myself) would have looked closely at what you said and examined our own beliefs. But namecalling, and what's worse, behavior which contradicts what you've been saying all along, is somewhat humorous.

You claim that moral judgments are subjective-but that in itself is a moral judgement. You say 'Relativism is right. Therefore, nothing is really right.' And so you can't claim that relativism is right.

You pretend that no moral code is surperior. But when pust comes to shove, it's obvious that you really don't believe that. You do think one code is surperior-your own.

Thus the dilemma. Can you realistically continue holding a belief that says it and all other beliefs are wrong?

[Varda]

This is a good question for me, since I just took a whole class on ethical theory this quarter. Basically, I decided that in theory there are moral absolutes. Some things are just right or wrong. Yet humans did invent morality, and without us there would be not interpretation of morality. Thus, if there is any universal, absolute, etc. morality from God or otherwise, we have to decide independently what we believe it is. Even if this includes God, we have to make every day decisions based on our core beliefs and furthmore justfiy our beliefs in God or other codes to ourselves. Or if we do not, we have to find other ways to make decisions about what is right and wrong in any given course. Thus, I'd have to say that our morality comes from whatever rational abilities that we choose to employ, thus I do not think it wise to blame all our decisions on Culture/society or to wholly accept what God says "just because God says so."

I personally am an agnostic. I believe religion by itself does not make you more moral and that actions speak much louder than words. Thus whatever you believe is your business. Yet in the end it should lead you to the right answer, which is a thing we all need to discover for ourselves.

This makes me perhaps a cultural relativist up to a point? or perhaps somewhere in between a relativist and an absolutist... in the end I think there is a right way and a wrong way, yet if you choose your actions based on a religion/society, there are so many of each to choose from that I see no reason in saying that any singular belief system is inherently better than any other. Since, in the end, morals are about making a better world (I believe), it seems the best world can be achieved if we are both tolerant and at the same time trying to search for the absolutely right answer morally. This answer may manifest itself differently to different people and different societies, and in this part I am unsure what the right answer is.

Also I might want to add that relativism is sort of based on the idea that we tend to disagree on morality adn that nothing can be concretely proven in the same way that hard science (ie. physics, chemistry) could prove more factual claims.

Let me give you the sequence from my course on the justifications for cultural relativism.... that might be interesting for your discussion:

This is the "strong version" of the argument for relativism...

1. There is intractable disagreement about morality.
2. If there is intractable disagreement, there is no fact of the matter.
3. There is intractable disagreement in morality.
Therefore, there is no fact of the matter in morality.
(if you're a stickler and want some sort of reference, it's just from my lecture notes....)

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

I must admit, you make some very good points, Wayfarer. But I believe that you are looking at it very much in black and white, and not seeing that there is something in between, a sort of compromise between the relative and the absolute. One does not have to choose between one way or the other, and stick to one side of the argument. It is indeed a dichotomy, but there is a middle ground, and ways in which one can lean one way or the other. Personally, I tend to be somewhere in the middle, probably a little closer to absolute, yet I still see many things as being relative. I would go on and explain my views further, but I am afraid I must get off the computer now, so I will end with this quote, which I find to be personally very moving, and connects with what some of what you were saying, although I do not have time to fully explain its significance to me. You all are smart people, I'm sure you will understand it. Anyway. . .


"In Germany, the Nazis first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."

- Martin Niemoeller, Berlin Lutheran pastor arrested by the Gestapo and sent to Dachau concentration camp in 1938; the Allied forces freed him seven years later.

[Wayfarer]

Yes, that post was very long winded. ]: )

[Rána Eressëa]

The one thing I don't like about these kinds of discussions is what seems to be bad feelings floating around. I can't say perfectly what I want to say, but I'll say it because it's as close to what I do believe as you're most likely going to get. Either way, I'm not going to prance around and pretend to be right when I have no clue if I am or not. I'm just trying to dose it out from my view, but I do appreciate seeing how other people's minds are working. Rather interesting how comparisions are often used in these things

[Kevin McIntyre]

My this thread is growing faster than I can keep up with.

I must say that the reliance on ancient text(s) as a guide through modern understanding is bewildering to me.