Gold & Moral Relativism

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

An idea or certain point has been creeping it’s way into my mind this last week. I have been going on my usual rantings about how people don’t understand what value is (in terms of currency). Check out:
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=160287

But I realize that this is directly connected to ‘value’ in terms of morality as well.

I am constantly trying to explain how currencies or money are representations of value, and that there can be no physical ‘standard’ (like gold) for money because value is relatively attributed to every different object, differently by every different person. That last sentence was a bit jumbled. i shouldn’t try to get my point across all in one sentence but the point that I am making is that value is relative… This is why history shows us that any currency ‘based’ on some ‘standard’ ultimately fails or is undermined. Ie money is based on gold, then what is gold worth? and how much supply is there and who has it? etc.

This all seems so clear to me. But I realized that this clarity of thought ultimately forces me into the ‘moral relativist’ category as well.

Here is a wonderful analogy that I would LOVE a response from my friends at ILP:

God, an authoritative text (the bible) are just like a gold standard.

Our morals/ethics are based on the standard of an authoritative religious text.
Our money is based on the standard of gold.

BOTH OF THESE FAIL!

There are no absolutes in terms of money or currency and
there are no absolutes in terms of morality or ethics.
They are both relatively determined by individuals.

It is almost a reverse way of proving that morals are relative. If you can get someone to agree that VALUE is relative regarding money, then they have opened the door to the flood gates of ‘moral relativism’. If they agree and understand that monetary value is relative (determined by and different for every individual)… then they ultimately have to believe that morals/ethics are relative as well.

I have not heard this analogy anywhere before.
I feel very proud of myself. =D> Yay me!. (what a dork!)

I should write an essay titled:
The God Standard & the Gold Standard
Or maybe: Gold & Moral Relativism

Perhaps I should make it a proper short essay and submit it so that I could have that cool ‘Symposia Contributor’ under my avatar (because that is the real reason why we submit essays isn’t it?) :laughing:

2

Moral relativism seems so clearly proved to me on the point that any one person can have a different value than another person. Period. End of debate. Say no more!
If people have different values… then values are relative.

The simple fact that I value the glass of water in front of me less than a man dying of thirst in the desert proves in a definite manner that values, morality, and ethics ARE ALL RELATIVE!

The idea of ‘objective value’ or ‘moral absolutes’ is literally meaningless.
They flat-out do not make any sense!

3

Yer preachin’ to the choir with me there, buckaroo.

There is a certain vacuum principle involved with the money thing. The entire end result of capitalism is to take that which is free and abundent (i.e. monitarily worthless) and reduce it in amount so that those who “own” it can charge for it and make money from those who do value it but don’t own it. Space, air, water, food, clothing, shelter, etc.

That which is free and abundent is not owned. It’s in the public domain. So, those who have the power get to decide who gets to own it before the reduction process begins. Since money begets money, and power begets power, there is no level playing field.

There used to be lots of space (land). Not so much any more. We now pay for water. It was free when I was a kid. I’d say that someday we will be paying for air, but I here they already have air bars in Japan where people stop in after work for some o2.

Value is indeed relative, but it can be adjusted by taking something that is absolutely necessary, though taken for granted (air), and reducing it to the point where it’s value is manifest. Even those who own it will value it, but they get to profit from sales while everyone else just gets to pay.

We need to cut the 6.5 billion demand back to accord with the natural supply. i.e. make things free and abundant again. Now that we have advances in technology, we no longer have to depend on the negatives that got us all the positives we enjoy today. Indeed, we can toss the negatives in the shit can and still enjoy the positives, if we choose to do so. But we don’t. There are still profits to be made. And those who want to make them sell the pending positives on the false notion that we must take the negatives along with us. They demand “growth” and “progress” but their definition of those terms is archiac. “Growth” for them means more consumers buying shit and “progress” is defined by monitary profits.

We need to make a virtue of necessity (Aldo Leopold) and find our value there, but the value of money stands in the way.

4

P.S. I’m not saying the markets don’t or won’t correct these issues. They will. But a lot of unnecessary negative shit will happen before the wake up call/adjustment/bubble pop occurs. We are, after all, in a HUGE bubble right now. HUGE. And the longer we delay the inevitable, the bigger and more painful the burst is going to be. We aren’t going to be saved by technology.

It’s not a matter of “if” it’s a matter of “when.”

5

Who would say they are not ‘moral relativists’?
Who disagrees with my post that God’s absolute morals are the same as believing that we need a gold standard and that both are wrong?

6

Value is subjective.

I think we made that very clear with like 5 threads.

7

The problem here is that it creates a consensus reality with respect to morality. So, the question becomes: Is morality like money, whose value is based on overarching social concerns, like the value of a dollar or is morality ultimately a personal concern like the example you gave with the man in the desert and the glass of water?

There is a key difference here. I could decide, as an individual, that the money in my pocket contains only the value of the paper and cloth used to make it and so I give away my money for something which I value incredibly highly that others regard as junk. When I try to make an economy based around my personally valuable junk, I’m gonna be in a lot of trouble!

8

Good point.

I think either side (to the extent there are sides) should honor the perceptions of the other. By honor, I mean respect, up to the point where they clash. Then the fighting can begin in earnest. But I think there is lots of room between picking side and clashing. Some folks on both sides seem hell-bent on closing that gap when it does not need closing.

When the clash does occur, I’ll generally side up with the relativist. My cash and my morals serve me as tools. I don’t serve them.

Indeed, if Jesus tips the tables of the money men in the Temple, then, when he’s done, he should wander over to the Bank and tip the tables of the morality men and tell them to get their God out of my government. The invisible hand is not the hand of God.

9

A human created concept is reletive. I thought they always were. Doesnt seem that amazing a find to me, seems pretty obvious

10

Are you suggesting there is some other kind of ‘created’ concept?
Can something else create concepts?

11

Good point. =D>

12

So everyone at ILP is a full blown ‘moral relativist’.
You all think we “just make up our morals out of thin air”. (As opponents might say)
So “if we just make up our values then why doesn’t everyone just run out and kill, rape, murder, steal etc? There would be nothing to stop us, right?”

Come on Moral Relativists, defend your position!

*Sorry everyone, I may not be able to post for quite a while. I promise to return when I can.

13

I think the moral stance of a relativist, which is not absolute, is to respect the perceptions of others.

For example, there is a philosophy among some Native Americans that we are what others percieve us to be. Now this notion is immediately offensive to many western minds because we all fancy ourselves to be so much more than what others could possibly see in us from the outside.

However, of what avail is any unseen depth not shared with others via action (even if that action is only speaking) and why should anyone give a shit about it? To deny that you are what I percieve you to be is to dishonor and disrespect my essence. For, all I can base my opinions on is what my perceptions present to me, and a large part of that is what is presented to my by that which I percieve.

Further, the philosophy is not saying John is only what Steve percieves him to be. Rather, John is what everyone percieves him to be and all people percieve him differently, or relative to their own point of view. So we can be more than what one or a few people percieve us to be, but we are at least what each individual percieves us to be, in some respect, even if minute.

If someone percieves me as an asshole, then I figure I am an asshole, at least in part. I can try and change their mind, if I choose, or not, but who am I to deny them their being/perceptions? That would indeed confirm their suspicions. I will honor their essence (i.e. their “self”), and accord them their right to look and see and touch and smell and think and hear and process the input and arrive at a conclusion based thereon. As a relativist, it is incumbent upon me to do so.

So, as relativists, it is incumbent upon us to accept relativism, which includes the “essence” of others. Thier perceptions are them. That does not mean I can’t take steps to try and alter perceptions, but I won’t deny them, even if I think, subjectively, they are wrong.

Try not to deprive something of it’s essence. If you want to alter how others percieve you, change you, not them. If they are wrong and you don’t want to be how they percieve you, or if you don’t want to change how your percieve yourself, then move on without them. Only engage them (i.e. kill them) if your perception of yourself calls upon you to do so and if you are happy with that.

That is why Absolutists are full of shit: they go around trying to deprive others of their essence and refusuing to honor the perceptions (relativity) of others.

The Absolutist abides the Golden Rule, which is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. What shit.

The Relativist abides the Natural Rule, which is to do unto others as you do unto yourself. That is the essence of honesty. And honor.

I could extrapolate on that latter concept but I wrote a damn paper on it about twenty years ago and it’s a little off topic.

The thing that pisses me off is the Absolutist who thinks Absolutism should recieve credit whenever any definitive action is taken; As if Relativism is in incapable of getting any thing done. That’s bull shit. There is “self-interest” and “enlightened self-interest.” Relativism is enlightened. Even if that means one is open to the possibility of being wrong. At least he goes forward with an eye toward the law of un-intended consequences and is more prepared to improvise, adapt and overcome when shit goes sul.

Hell, true Relativism accepts the possibility of the absence of itself and even understand the truth of it. It’s the biggest tent in the Universe. It is the Universe. It’s so big that I don’t like the term “tent” since that implies containment. Whatever. Absolutists should be accorded their perceptions, harnessed, and put to work for the betterment of all, including themselves. They make good followers and good workers. But it takes a great leader to harness them. That we don’t seem to have.

14

What is morality?

Morality is the speed limit. Morality is the seat belt.

What is relative?

Relative is the fast lane. Relative is the yellow light.

What is a bad driver?

A bad driver doesn’t obey the rules.

What is a good driver?

A good driver obeys the rules but knows when to make exceptions.

Why have we set up such a system as this?

Said Aristotle; “the end of all means is happiness.”

15

does it make any difference? If you wish to be perdantic I could say any concept is reletive

16

Morality is the relative interests of other people who try to legitimize subjective values by force of arms or the threat of symbolic law.

It is the harvester of the weak not to mention it is plain hypocrisy as it claims righteous “goodness” but enacts itself into action by immoral means.

Morality is weak in that it allows the accuser of so called righteousness all the means to power by superstitious idealism but allows the condemned no means to defend themselves or fight back naturally.

The operation of morality is placing a non-existent superstitious metaphor of a thing-in-itself in the actions of the condemned with the use of words like evil or wrong even though the condemned succeeded in their actions by the “success” of natural selection along with their individual will to power whatever it may be.

17

I want to believe it or not. Just give me some time.

18

There are many, if not unlimited reasons why we do not. :sunglasses:

19

True. It isn’t because we don’t want to. :evilfun: :stuck_out_tongue:

20

So I guess no opposition for all of us moral relativists…? :confused: