Morality: Relativism or Absolutism?

[Faísca]

Moral Relativism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Moral relativism is a view that claims moral standards are not absolute or universal, but rather emerge from social customs and other sources. Relativists consequently see moral values as applicable only within agreed or accepted cultural boundaries. Very few, if any, people hold this view in its pure form, but hold instead another more qualified verson of it.

Protagoras' notion that "man is the measure of all things" may be seen as an early philosophical precursor to relativism. Moral relativists hold that an unsharable, personal, and aesthetic moral core lies at the foundation of personal choices. They deny the possibility of sharing morality at all, except by convention.

A simple way to express this view is that "everyone draws their own moral from the same story" and behaves according to their own impression, acceptance, or rejection of it.

It is often confused with ethical relativism which holds that morality can be shared but only between closely-knit groups sharing a moral code and committed to joint action, e.g. an ethnic minority in a hostile situation.

A moral relativist, on the other hand, would hold that even people in such a circumstance do not follow a common moral code, but are simply unable to follow their varying personal urges due to social pressure.

Moral Absolutism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

Moral absolutism is the belief or theory that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged and suggests that morals are not determined by societal or situational influences.

According to Moral Absolutism, morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, or some other fundamental source. Moral absolutism is often contrasted with moral relativism.

Moral absolutism regards actions as inherently or inarguably moral or immoral. Moral absolutists might, for example, judge slavery, the death penalty, or childhood female genital mutilation to be absolutely and inarguably immoral regardless of the beliefs and goals of a culture that engages in these practices.

In a minority of cases, moral absolutism is taken to the more constrained position that actions are moral or immoral regardless of the circumstances in which they occur. Lying, for instance, would always be immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life). This rare view of moral absolutism might be contrasted with moral consequentialism—the view that the morality of an action depends on the context or consequences of that action.

Modern human rights theory is a form of moral absolutism, usually based on the nature of humanity and the essence of human nature. One such theory was constructed by John Rawls in his A Theory of Justice.

[Timo]

Relativism.

Of Absolutism I ask, how does it become universal? Who decides?

[Russian Imperialist]

It seems to me that morality stems from the most underlying level of the World- Schopenhauer's World Will.
Der Wille der Macht is an egoistic trend but any individual who is nothing else as a World Will's incarnation may feel his moral obligation in quite a different way dependent on the extent his personality " feels" his relationship to a unique World Will. The more deep this connection is the more an individual is able to identify himself with other persons, to feel their pains as his own and to act correspondingly. Such persons possess what I would name " absolute morality". Other extreme pole are small-minded egoists considering other persons as nothing;their moral is relative and uses their persons as main reference systems. The rest are various degrees of mixture of the previous extremes.

[Ederico]

Moral Absolutism was prevalent when God was recognised as its source and the faithful truly existed. Through history this thesis became discredited and the road was opened to Moral Relativism which opened the way for all sorts of degeneracies in every field, and to which the Decline of the West, inherently Christian in the past, can be attributed in the realms of Ethics, Morals, and also Culture.

I favour Moral Absolutism, but in such a truly Dark Age we live in one requires good will and dedicated study, plus a rediscovery of Faith to potentially apply it.

This ties in to what was said in the Wikipedia article that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a sort of Moral Absolutism, which I find hard to accept as the basis for such Absolutism is less than Noble and is inspired by Liberalism, Anti-Nationalism, and a disregard of Tradition itself.

[Milesian]

Absolutely absolutism.
I too found the Wikipedia somewhat deficient in it's description, but what the heck

[Eriugena]

Originally Posted by Ederico Figallo

This ties in to what was said in the Wikipedia article that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a sort of Moral Absolutism, which I find hard to accept as the basis for such Absolutism is less than Noble and is inspired by Liberalism, Anti-Nationalism, and a disregard of Tradition itself.

Well you are right because the Universal Declaration (UD) can nt be a candidate for moral absolutism. The UD is purely arbitrary, it is not grounded in any priniciple. It is a string of purely arbitary pronouncements. Moral absolutism,properly speaking, must be grounded on an irreducible first principle from which everything else is deductively drawn, i.e. God. In other words, such a principle is identified with that which we call God. Otherwise what is called morality is little more than a product of the human will, abitrary and so relativistic. Properly speaking, there can be no morality without what it is that is named as God.

[Timo]

Disclaimer: I am posting the material of my post based on the assumtion by myself, that it is alright to discuss Religious matters in the philosophy section, given that it is used to answer or debate a philosophical question. If my post goes to much into the realm of religion, I apologize to the staff.

Yet there is no proof for this one you call "God." Yet there is proof for relativism. Therefore, being of rational mind, I can only choose the one with proof over the one without. Now, if you have met or talked to this God and he has told you that he has created fundimental moral absolutes, then I'd like proof of that.




I also reject, my friend, Edrico's premise:

Originally Posted by Ederico Figallo

Moral Absolutism was prevalent when God was recognised as its source and the faithful truly existed. Through history this thesis became discredited and the road was opened to Moral Relativism which opened the way for all sorts of degeneracies in every field, and to which the Decline of the West, inherently Christian in the past, can be attributed in the realms of Ethics, Morals, and also Culture.

I dispute that moral relativism has anything to do with this at all. Moral Relativism simply states that morals are relative to a specific culture (ex more), group, or situation (et aliæ).


Exempli gratia: If you, Edrico, were ruling your nation of Malta, then you could make the decision of what is moral for you and your people your own mores. Those morals and laws however only apply to your one nation, who by their own culture has set their own will. The same will be true for Mr. Mohammed, in his little nation that he rules. He will base his laws on his own morals relative to his culture, they however will not be the same as your own. Mr. Mohammed will find it moral to execute adulterers, whereas you may not find that moral. It's relative. And since his laws are based on the culture of his people and agreed upon de facto by all who are under the law (knowingly or not), who are subject to his morals and laws. You may think that his laws are immoral, yet he is the ruler of a sovereign nation, and short of war, there would be no way to change his laws. You may claim your god handed you down your morals, he would claim the same. Who is right? Well, I think neither of you are right. As I have stated, laws are set on morals and morals are set in the culture, which is relative and changing.

As for the decline of the west, and the acceptance of degenerates, that is not Moral Relativism, rather Egalitarianism - mostly spread by "Evangeical Christians" and "Secular Progressives". Egalitarianism is the philosophy that all are equal. This is fundimentally flawed, because it sets an absolute, when there is so much proof to the contrary that not all humans are equal to another. It, likeswise, was set in Christianity by Christians (in concreto, the American Declaration of Independence, the basis for the UDHR, et cetera), who firmly believed that GOD made all men equal and the same, therefore all men should be treated the same.

Once agian, the use of an unprovable diety makes it's appearance. It is such an easy out for someone to point to the sky and say, "...because God devined it so." Yet, if you want to have a scientific and intellectual civilization, one not ruled by superstitions and myths, then you need to have a basis of science as your belief system. Science deems that proof is needed to make an affirmation. If God exists, then there must be proof to affirm this. If there is no proof, there is no way to affirm God's existance. If there is no affirmation of his existance, then you can't use him as a basis for objective, absolute morals.

I reach my belief that moral relativism is the right one based not on an unprovable being (id est, a diety), rather upon the facts that I know to be true and proven. I have morals, this is true and proven to me. Mr. Smith has morals, it is true and proven because he told me, and I believe him. Mr. Smith and I agree that murder is wrong. However, Mr. Smith believes that killing, for any reason, is wrong. I disagree, and believe that killing isn't always wrong, that it depends on the situation. Murder, I argue, is different because it is an illegal killing, and I am a law-abiding citizen. I therefore think that the morality of killing is relative to the situation and mores of the culture (id est, the laws). In one situation it would be immoral (bad) and in another it would be acceptable - that is moral relativism.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Timo

As for the decline of the west, and the acceptance of degenerates, that is not Moral Relativism, rather Egalitarianism - mostly spread by "Evangeical Christians" and "Secular Progressives". Egalitarianism is the philosophy that all are equal. This is fundimentally flawed, because it sets an absolute, when there is so much proof to the contrary that not all humans are equal to another. It, likeswise, was set in Christianity by Christians (in concreto, the American Declaration of Independence, the basis for the UDHR, et cetera), who firmly believed that GOD made all men equal and the same, therefore all men should be treated the same.

This is quite simply - false.
The American Constitution is based on Liberal, Masonic ideology.
America was hugely influenced by the ideals of the French Revolution - an eglitarian, proto-socialistic, anti-clerical catastrophe.

The idea of "Liberty of Conscience", Pluralism, Rights of Man, Seperation of Church & State, etc are all descended from this same philosphy. Not a few commentators have mentioned that the American constitution is anything but Christian at it's core.

On the contrary, ideas such as "Rights of Man" and "Equality" have been explicitly condemned by Papal Encyclical in the past as erroneous doctrines.

For, indeed, although the socialists, stealing the very Gospel itself with a view to deceive more easily the unwary, have been accustomed to distort it so as to suit their own purposes, nevertheless so great is the difference between their depraved teachings and the most pure doctrine of Christ that none greater could exist: "for what participation hath justice with injustice or what fellowship hath light with darkness?"7 Their habit, as we have intimated, is always to maintain that nature has made all men equal, and that, therefore, neither honor nor respect is due to majesty, nor obedience to laws, unless, perhaps, to those sanctioned by their own good pleasure. But, on the contrary, in accordance with the teachings of the Gospel, the equality of men consists in this: that all, having inherited the same nature, are called to the same most high dignity of the sons of God, and that, as one and the same end is set before all, each one is to be judged by the same law and will receive punishment or reward according to his deserts. The inequality of rights and of power proceeds from the very Author of nature, "from whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named." 8 But the minds of princes and their subjects are, according to Catholic doctrine and precepts, bound up one with the other in such a manner, by mutual duties and rights, that the thirst for power is restrained and the rational ground of obedience made easy, firm, and noble

QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS(On Socialism)
Pope Leo XIII
28 December 1878

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Milesian

This is quite simply - false.
The American Constitution is based on Liberal, Masonic ideology.

Ok. Tell me where I stated the American constitution. I stated the American declaration of Independence, which set forth a philosophy of "all men are created equal." The American Dec. of Ind. is not the Constitution of American, it has nothing to do with the Constitution. It is not even law.

On the contrary, ideas such as "Rights of Man" and "Equality" have been explicitly condemned by Papal Encyclical in the past as erroneous doctrines.

Which is why I made a distinction and used the phrase "Christian Evangelicals."
Who, by the way, claim that God made all men equally - nor do they recognize your pope.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Timo

Ok. Tell me where I stated the American constitution. I stated the American declaration of Independence, which set forth a philosophy of "all men are created equal." The American Dec. of Ind. is not the Constitution of American, it has nothing to do with the Constitution. It is not even law.

Quite right.
I misread in my haste. Still, the Declaration of Independence was till in the same spirit with it's notions of "Equality" and such like

Which is why I made a distinction and used the phrase "Christian Evangelicals."
Who, by the way, claim that God made all men equally - nor do they recognize your pope.

Very adroit
Fair enough, I don't know the in's and out's of the various Evangelical Protestant denominations. I would have thought they varied on these opinions as in others, or do they all think the same on this topic?

[Gil]

I chose Moral Relativism based on some assumptions of mine, specifically:

a) no human being is inately moral. Morality is "programmed" into the human being during childhood and adulthood. Example: In a society where lying is regarded as "wrong" the majority of parents will educate their offspring in the sense that they should not lie and that lying is "bad", hence it becomes part of it's moral code.

b) regardless of the moral code, everyone is prone to break it. Moral positions are taken when one is faced with a specific problem and it is very variable (from one person to another) what one considers moral and immoral.

c) humans are at the core animals and as such have basic instincts. What differentiates humans from other mammals (and all animals, actually) is their ability to contradict their instincts. And instincts are beyond any moral justification.

All of this is, of course, IMHO.
Cheers

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Milesian

I would have thought they varied on these opinions as in others, or do they all think the same on this topic?

In modern times, you'd be hard pressed to find a Protestant Church which isn't spreading the message of equality and harmony. Most Protestant denominations are so similar that most protestants don't know what is the difference between each of the denominations. What's the difference between Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Mennonites, Presbyterian, or Reformed? That is not including the variations within each of the above. It is so silly how many churches and groups splinter over tiny differences.

[Ederico]

Originally Posted by Timo

Yet there is no proof for this one you call "God." Yet there is proof for relativism. Therefore, being of rational mind, I can only choose the one with proof over the one without.

God is a question of Faith in Divine Revelation and not one of Rationalism.

Reason is not the sine qua non in matters of Religion and Morality, and Religion and Morality are fundamentally intertwined and when the two are disassociated, or rather when God and Morality are disassociated, then one opens the way for Moral Relativism, which various Popes and men of Faith had admonished in the past as opening the gates for degeneracies to abound. They were proven right, and they were so.

Through Moral Relativism, Morality becomes an Individualistic affair which unbinds the Community Spirit which requires a Common Morality to function accordingly and in harmony. The alternative is adhering to the effects of Liberalism, Modernism, and Progressivism, labels that sound nice to the modern conditioned man but which in fact are the cause of degeneracy in practically every field within Western Civilisation.

Nietzsche's apt statement "God is dead!" signified the end of a Moral Order and the heralding into an Amoral Order which excelled in a Moral Relativism of a primarily Individualistic nature. No wonder every modern degeneracy is now accepted in a nonchalant manner, as the Individual is the sole judge of the Righteous, without any sort of guidance apart from his own Individualistic and glorified Reason. "God is dead!" actually means that Morality is subject to Amorality, for Morality within a a Strong and Binded Society cannot be of an Individualistic and Subjective Nature.

I also reject, my friend, Edrico's premise:

I dispute that moral relativism has anything to do with this at all. Moral Relativism simply states that morals are relative to a specific culture (ex more), group, or situation (et aliæ).

This invites instability, in particular in an unstable Western Civilisation where the Multiculturalist Dogma prevails. Moral Relativism is eventually originating in the Individual not in a Collective of any sort. Collective Morality requires Moral Absolutism.

As I have stated, laws are set on morals and morals are set in the culture, which is relative and changing.

The forms of Morality which are indeed remaining in Western Traditions are a result of Christian Traditions. Man's Anarchic Reason can justify any sort of depravity without the guidance of a suitable Moral System, which is essentially intertwined with Religion. Man's Reason can justify Murder, Homosexuality, Paedophilia, Drug Abuse, and all sorts of actions and behaviours, if Moral Relativism prevails. That is the present, that is the future, and that is due to Western Man's lack of Faith and the eventuality of the statement "God is dead!" in the Moral Conception of Western Man.

As for the decline of the west, and the acceptance of degenerates, that is not Moral Relativism, rather Egalitarianism - mostly spread by "Evangeical Christians" and "Secular Progressives". Egalitarianism is the philosophy that all are equal. This is fundimentally flawed, because it sets an absolute, when there is so much proof to the contrary that not all humans are equal to another. It, likeswise, was set in Christianity by Christians (in concreto, the American Declaration of Independence, the basis for the UDHR, et cetera), who firmly believed that GOD made all men equal and the same, therefore all men should be treated the same.

I quote a true Catholic Pope (Leo XIII) on the question of Egalitarianism:

"17. It must be first of all recognized that the condition of things inherent in human affairs must be borne with, for it is impossible to reduce civil society to one dead level. Socialists may in that intent do their utmost, but all striving against nature is in vain. There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition." - [Source: Rerum Novarum - Leo XIII - Vatican.va]

"Their habit*, as we have intimated, is always to maintain that nature has made all men equal, and that, therefore, neither honor nor respect is due to majesty, nor obedience to laws, unless, perhaps, to those sanctioned by their own good pleasure. But, on the contrary, in accordance with the teachings of the Gospel, the equality of men consists in this: that all, having inherited the same nature, are called to the same most high dignity of the sons of God, and that, as one and the same end is set before all, each one is to be judged by the same law and will receive punishment or reward according to his deserts. The inequality of rights and of power proceeds from the very Author of nature, "from whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named."" - [Source: Quod Apostolici Muneris - Leo XIII - Vatican.va]

*"Their habit" - This refered originally to Socialists and all those believing the Egalitarian Dogma - Not approved by the Roman Catholic Church.

I reach my belief that moral relativism is the right one based not on an unprovable being (id est, a diety), rather upon the facts that I know to be true and proven. I have morals, this is true and proven to me. Mr. Smith has morals, it is true and proven because he told me, and I believe him. Mr. Smith and I agree that murder is wrong. However, Mr. Smith believes that killing, for any reason, is wrong. I disagree, and believe that killing isn't always wrong, that it depends on the situation. Murder, I argue, is different because it is an illegal killing, and I am a law-abiding citizen. I therefore think that the morality of killing is relative to the situation and mores of the culture (id est, the laws). In one situation it would be immoral (bad) and in another it would be acceptable - that is moral relativism.

That is exactly the source of Moral Degeneracy - In a Society one needs fixed and Absolute Moral Precepts. Catholicism provides such a thing for the Faithful, and what Morality remains in Western Society is a result of such (Christian) Traditions. Otherwise Morality results in Amorality or at least to open and vague interpretations of Morality which eventually result in its dissolution.

As a side note, I used to hold your same position in the past even though I favoured an Ideal Morally Absolutist Society as a truly Moral Society. At that time I rejected God and Faith and glorified Reason and Science. That same glorification is the cause of Western Degeneracy and the Moral, Spiritual, and Cultural Decline of the West itself, which even the Popes had warned against.

[Eriugena]

Originally Posted by Timo

Disclaimer: I am posting the material of my post based on the assumtion by myself, that it is alright to discuss Religious matters in the philosophy section, given that it is used to answer or debate a philosophical question. If my post goes to much into the realm of religion, I apologize to the staff.

Yet there is no proof for this one you call "God." Yet there is proof for relativism. Therefore, being of rational mind, I can only choose the one with proof over the one without. Now, if you have met or talked to this God and he has told you that he has created fundimental moral absolutes, then I'd like proof of that.

What do you mean by proof for God and what do you mean by proof for relativism? What you can have is arguments for and against both. So instead of proclaiming relativism why not put up some arguments for it rather than endlessly pontificating?

I also reject, my friend, Edrico's premise:



I dispute that moral relativism has anything to do with this at all. Moral Relativism simply states that morals are relative to a specific culture (ex more), group, or situation (et aliæ).

Then you are confusing the word 'custom' with 'morality.'
The real relativist argument states that things are as they seem to each.

Exempli gratia: If you, Edrico, were ruling your nation of Malta, then you could make the decision of what is moral for you and your people your own mores.

The ruler does not determine what is moral, only what is law.

Those morals and laws however only apply to your one nation, who by their own culture has set their own will.

Only the laws will apply to the country, morals are not determined by national borders, rulers etc.

The same will be true for Mr. Mohammed, in his little nation that he rules. He will base his laws on his own morals relative to his culture, they however will not be the same as your own. Mr. Mohammed will find it moral to execute adulterers, whereas you may not find that moral. It's relative. And since his laws are based on the culture of his people and agreed upon de facto by all who are under the law (knowingly or not), who are subject to his morals and laws. You may think that his laws are immoral, yet he is the ruler of a sovereign nation, and short of war, there would be no way to change his laws. You may claim your god handed you down your morals, he would claim the same. Who is right? Well, I think neither of you are right. As I have stated, laws are set on morals and morals are set in the culture, which is relative and changing.

Now you are confusing morality with law.

Quote: