I’ve always been somewhat on the fence on the question of whether I’m a moral relativist or a utilitarian objectivist. But recent discussions in a certain thread have helped me to resolve the tug-of-war between these two positions within me. I now understand that the two are mutually compatible answers to two quite different moral questions. Let me know what you think of the following:
When it comes to the question of what good and bad are - that is, how we define the terms - one can appeal to an objective answer: utilitarian. Good, we can say, is the quintessential character of pleasure in any form (physical, emotional, intellectual, etc.), whereas bad is the quintessential character of pain.
But when it comes to the question of what things are good or bad - that is, whether a particular act or situation or person is good or bad - one can be a relativist. One can say, for example, that so-and-so is a good person for you but a bad one for me.
These two positions work well in this way (that is, when applied to the two different questions of morality) because in the one case wherein the terms ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are being defined, such a definition bears no consequence on what things in the world (or situations or people) we attribute good and bad to (at least, not when such attribution comes off, virtually, as arbitrary). I can, in other words, define good as pleasure and bad as pain, and while observing how we generally project our pains and pleasures (mostly emotional in the case of moral judgments) on situations and other people and call that ‘good’ or ‘bad’, I can rightly infer that what becomes good and bad in this way depends on the person doing the projecting and who or what he/she projects his/her pains and pleasures on.
It would be much like defining the word ‘red’ as the color of this text, but at the same time recognizing that if someone were to read that text wearing yellow tinted shades, he would see it as orange. I could then say, without negating my definition of ‘red’, that the text is orange relative to that individual. To say such a thing in no way negates what I identify as red (or orange for that matter), for red to me is a specific hue of color, and what things so happen to be red might different from one person to another depending on how they see those things.
There’s never been a good reason to believe there’s an incompatibility between objectivism and relativism. “Objective” is the opposite of “subjective”. “Relative” is the opposite of “absolute”. Any of the four combinations objective-absolute, objective-relative, subjective-absolute and subjective-relative is possible.
Reality is the schism between power and moral clarity.
Moral clarity is the schism between reality and power.
Power is the schism between moral clarity and reality.
Thank you for that Remster; you’re quite right. Though there is something to be said of the ongoing debates between the relativists and the objectivists (as they call themselves), or are these just unfortunate misnomers.
Morality and ethics will always be one person’s unsubstantiated opinion against someone elses equally unsubstantiated opinion.
There is so much contradiction in the subjects of morality and ethics that they can hardly be taken seriously at all by anybody that has the slightest clue to how this world exists.
I suspect that, in the context, for “relativists” you may read “relativist-subjectivists” and for “objectivists” you may read “absolutist-objectivists”. That’s why there’s a genuine debate. The remaining positions, viz. absolutist-subjectivism and relativist-objectivism, are less popular.
Why wouldn’t they? The truth that size 10 shoes are too small for my feet is both objective and relative. And if there were some thing, X, that everyone liked, the truth that everyone liked X would be both subjective and absolute.
Wrong on both accounts. Because you already included “for my feet” and “that everyone liked” in your description. So though it is true that size 10 shoes are too small in relation to your feet, and thereby that the statement “size 10 shoes are too small” is only a relative truth, the statement that size 10 shoes are too small for your feet is an absolute truth.
“Relative” and “objective” are antonyms in this context because “relative” implies “relative to a subject”.
Sorry, I’ve misled you. By ‘truth’ I meant ‘that which makes a true proposition true’. The truth that size 10 shoes are too small for my feet is a relative truth in this sense because it’s a truth in which only my feet are constituents.
If you object to this usage, I’m not too bothered. I’ll just make the same point in a way that’s consistent with your preferred usage.
And because it’s a truth in which only size 10 shoes are constituents, and only size 10 shoes, and in which size 10 shoes are only too small for your feet, etc. No, this won’t do. For this would mean that the only absolute truth in this context would be that all properties (e.g., sizes) of all things (e.g., shoes) are excessive in every way (e.g., in being too small) for all things (e.g., your feet).
Absolutely (heh). The truth that Everest is the highest mountain in the world is a contingent truth that’s absolute.
Of course, you can use ‘absolute’ to mean ‘necessary’, or ‘relative’ to mean ‘subjective’, if you want. But it makes it harder to draw all the distinctions you might otherwise find it useful to draw.
The relativist-objectivism pairing might make sense in my view (this is, after all, what I take Einstein’s relativity to be), but absolutist-subjectivism sounds like an oxymoron. If everyone liked X, then X being good is still relative to everyone (i.e. there doesn’t have to be differing opinions on X) whereas a statement like X weighs 10 lbs is true non-relativistically (or so our common sense would say).
Perhaps some clear definitions should be laid out.
A) It’s so simple and overgeneralized that it lacks any clear and rational meaning, and demonstrates you only have a vague, incoherent understanding of this topic’s prerequisites (basically, your post shows you don’t have a vocabulary conducive for intelligible communication pertaining to the OP). For example, you speak of “morality” and “ethics”–which are categories that respectively refer to (morality:) that which is being/acting in line with “good”, and refer to (ethics:) rules/principles of conduct to be/act in line with “good”–as if they are themselves the specific beliefs of right or wrong that they categorize.
B) You say that "there is so much contradiction in the [very] subjects of morality and ethics (which is the subject of this thread–a label of that which is being discussed, so your judgment of the overall topic/OP and every pertaining point is included in/“covered” by the blanket statement that continues:) that they [the subjects of morality and ethics] can hardly be taken seriously at all by anybody that has the slightest clue to how this world exists. Basically, from the words you used (can’t interpret from anything else ), you said the subject of this thread–and so the whole discussion, and everyone’s input in that context–is (by your definition and claims, automatically) a contradiction…with every statement equally unsubstantiated…and none of it can be taken seriously (by you).
Your post tells everyone that you’re not going to take anything related to the subjects of morality and ethics seriously. On top of that, your post’s incoherent word choice and utter lack of rationality says nothing else; there is no clear, debatable points, so the only meaning any careful reader will reduce from your utterance is “anyone who takes this subject seriously doesn’t have the slightest clue; anyone who doesn’t understand my point, and tries to refute it, won’t be taken seriously”. I’m actually doing you a favor by translating it into a clear, comprehensible statement; your post actually reads more like “‘Morality/Ethics’ *grunt of disapproval/disinterest”.
And then there’s the glaring irony of the whole thing: Your post says the subject of morality and ethics wouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone with the slightest clue of how the world exists, which assumes that some things ought to not be taken seriously, which makes your own post a subject of morality and ethics. So you express your disapproval and disinterest in the subject, and then you make another post, whining that nobody has presented you with that with which you disapprove. It would be funny if it wasn’t so vulgar.
‘Relative to everyone’ and ‘absolute’ mean the same thing. The example you give is an example of an non-relational truth. There’s a difference between ‘relative’ and ‘relational’.
I haven’t time right now to give definitions, but I’ll think about it over the next few days.
Oh… well excuse me for not sounding so fancy or complex in my simple way of describing and talking about issues that I come off as simple minded to such esteemed intellectuals as of the like in this thread…
Actually I was talking about how you can’t put the cart before the wagon especially if what is being discussed here is contradictory in so many ways.
You guys wish to discuss the existence of morality and ethics but wish to not hear their contradictions first that somewhat questions their entire ligitimacy in the first place.
I’m not sure how you got all of that from the small post that I have thus posted here previously.
So?
And?
And?
What isn’t rational about my post? My being dismissive towards the subject of morality and ethics?
And?
Again my point was that in order for you guys to be discussing your points or preresquites as you like to call them is to assume that morality and ethics has some sort of real quantitative quality in this world somthing of which you don’t seem to want to talk about.
So what?
Well if somebody judges me on make believe unsubstantiated and unquantifiable qulias I am not of course going to take them seriously.
So what if I did?
Well it’s too bad we can’t all be the esteemed intellectual blowhard like yourself.
), you said the subject of this thread–and so the whole discussion, and everyone’s input in that context–is 