Moral Relativism/Universalism.

[Tsyal Makto]

What are people's opinions regarding relativism and universalism?

Personally, I tend to believe in moral relativism. Different cultures, each with their own respective moral codes, have been successfully functioning since the beginning of time, in their own way. I also believe that things which today are often used to guage cultural superiority, like technological advance or economic growth, cannot be used to determine what culture is right or wrong (IE: Manifest Destiny), because it is only within that culture that something like technology or economics is valued. Another culture might not hold such a thing to high regard.

Plus, moral universalism leads to a lot of fighting. All you gotta do is take a peak at the Middle East to see how well moral universalism has worked with the religious community. Universalists think they're right, and everyone else is wrong, and that they need to be shown they are wrong with the end of a gun.

[Fkeu 'Awpo]

It's a funny thing. Morals are relative, but like you said somewhere earlier, we each believe our own should be universal.

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Fkeu 'Awpo

It's a funny thing. Morals are relative, but like you said somewhere earlier, we each believe our own should be universal.

Ain't human nature lovely?

[rapunzel77]

I believe that there are some universally moral principles that have been followed in one degree or another throughout history. They are the basics such as don't murder, don't steal, etc. Every culture has had various ways to enact moral laws. Honestly, I can't really think of a culture that was completely relativistic when it came to morality and how society was to be operated. If we were total relativists then it would be total chaos.

Afterall, if there were no moral absolutes then there would be no recourse to justice if a murderer killed a loved one or a robber took everything that you have, right?

Surely, if you thought about it long enough, there are some things that you would consider wrong, right? Why would they be considered wrong if as you say, everything is relative, including the murderer's desire to kill an innocent person or a robber to rob your home?

[Mune]

I believe that there are some universally moral principles that have been followed in one degree or another throughout history. They are the basics such as don't murder, don't steal, etc. Every culture has had various ways to enact moral laws. Honestly, I can't really think of a culture that was completely relativistic when it came to morality and how society was to be operated. If we were total relativists then it would be total chaos.

Afterall, if there were no moral absolutes then there would be no recourse to justice if a murderer killed a loved one or a robber took everything that you have, right?

Surely, if you thought about it long enough, there are some things that you would consider wrong, right? Why would they be considered wrong if as you say, everything is relative, including the murderer's desire to kill an innocent person or a robber to rob your home?

In my personal and probably very deluded opinion, there IS no right and wrong. Simply comparisons and judgements that are made. 'Right' and 'wrong' is simply a figment of your collective judgement. Experiences that you've collected. Lessons that you've been told.

I don't really believe in 'morals', the logical behind them crumbles more and more as you slowly learn more and more about comparison.

In your example;

robber took everything that you have, right?

Relative to the robbers point of view; that was a correct action. He believes it is 'right'. Therefore the idea that the robbery is 100% wrong crumbles, as long as there is more than one opinion involved.

Surely, if you thought about it long enough, there are some things that you would consider wrong, right? Why would they be considered wrong if as you say, everything is relative, including the murderer's desire to kill an innocent person or a robber to rob your home?

Well, -I- personally, would indeed consider them wrong. However, from the murderers point of view, and the robbers; both are the 'righteous' ways to do things. It's all about belief in the system. It's a case of "I bought this so I now own it." And when it gets taken away from you. "It's not fair."

The truth is, in my opinion, [note the contradiction] - That there's no such thing as fair. There's nobody there to tell you off if you do something 'unfair' to another human being. In primary school there are teachers; members of authority. Later there are police, the adult authority.

Though there's still the ancient saying;

"If you don't get caught; there are no consequences."

[ZenitYerkes]

I always wanted to post here but never had the time to.

First, take in count we can have a collective moral and an individual moral. When it comes to the individual itself, it is a fact that every single person has different opinions and ways to think; since we aren't brought up the same nor come out of the same "Baby Factory". In an individual level, we've got an understandable and absolute moral relativism: hence why the thieves and the stolen think differently on the same act: robbery.

But when it comes to live together, either in a tribe, in a polis, in an empire or a country; consensus appears. Some opinions take over others because of the authority given, their logic and reasonableness, their capability to contribute to the common good,... The larger the range is, the more difficult reaching a commonplace for all morals is: this is where universal values appear. Since we perceive and feel almost the same, shouldn't we have common ethics? It's all about comparing and contrasting all systems: take out names, faces, cultures, languages,... You've got the basic relationships between persons and the rules or ethics they're based on.

Respect, love, freedom, generosity, equality,...

However, such values are reduced and their influence is much less strong than the locals (EG, authority).

[joeylovesgaia]

I think that all systems of morality/ethics, when you get down to the bottom, are based on compassion. e.g., you don't kill because the other person will suffer by dying (because we all want to live); you don't steal because the other person will suffer if you take their food, their sentimental trinkets, etc; you don't rape because the other person will suffer (physical pain, feeling powerless, and having their space invaded). In fact all crimes (other than victimless ones like drugs) invade the victim's personal space and make them feel powerless. The sociopath commits many such invasions, and profits by it; the empath commits no crimes for they feel others' pain; and most of us fall somewhere in the middle, having compassion for some but not all.

http://www.cracked.com/article_14990...keysphere.html

[TheAsatruar]

Originally Posted by Mune

[COLOR="SeaGreen"]In my personal and probably very deluded opinion, there IS no right and wrong. Simply comparisons and judgements that are made. 'Right' and 'wrong' is simply a figment of your collective judgement. Experiences that you've collected. Lessons that you've been told.

Actually I believe empathy is hard wired into us and empathy to me is the basis of ethics and morals. Every time we see something which hurts someone our brain replicates it in our minds on a extremely small scale.

I have seen experiments which increase this output to be visible. There are occasions where it happens naturally as well when we flinch when we see someone get hurt.

Originally Posted by Mune

[COLOR="SeaGreen"]
I don't really believe in 'morals', the logical behind them crumbles more and more as you slowly learn more and more about comparison.

In your example;



Relative to the robbers point of view; that was a correct action. He believes it is 'right'. Therefore the idea that the robbery is 100% wrong crumbles, as long as there is more than one opinion involved.

That only works until its switched around. If he actually thought robbery is right then he would be fine talking into his house only to find it robbed bare and from what i've seen they usually have the same righteous indignation that others have.

The same can be said when they are forced to face the people they robbed and admit they where wrong.

To my mind, they know its wrong but just don't care its wrong.

There's a difference.

Originally Posted by Mune

The truth is, in my opinion, [note the contradiction] - That there's no such thing as fair. There's nobody there to tell you off if you do something 'unfair' to another human being. In primary school there are teachers; members of authority. Later there are police, the adult authority.

Fairness is "do unto others as you want them to do unto you" and can be taught into 3 year olds in minutes.

Its not about being told off, its about consequence and thought before action of how you would react if the tables where turned.

Some can just ignore it until they are forced to confront it.

Of course some are born without empathy being hard wired into them. They are the ones we normally call psychotic.



thats what I believe.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by TheAsatruar

Of course some are born without empathy being hard wired into them. They are the ones we normally call psychotic.

I think you mean sociopathic/psychopathic. Psychotic is to suffer from psychosis, which is to lose touch with reality.