Ok, for the longest time I was convinced Ethics was relative. Cultural Relativism was my pride and joy. However, today I really sat down and put more thought into it and its implications. If ethics are relative, then there is no right or wrong. Only right in some societies and wrong in others. But since there is no objective standard which to guide us, choosing what is moral/immoral is arbitrary. I then thought that it may not be because we can decide by reasoning and logic. But reasoning in accordance to what? You have no standard to even use reasoning and logic. It seems that if you accept relativism you have to accept that your morals are simply arbitrary.
Thus isnt relativism the same as ethical nihilism? (If thats even a term) You dont believe anything is moral or immoral because there is no objective code to follow. You also must believe you simply arbitrarily choose what you want to be ok and not ok. Its like youre thinking to yourself
"Well…I dont believe in an objective ethical standard…Therefore nothing is morally right or morally wrong definitively. However, I need morality to function in society so I chose actions as being right and wrong so my society can function. (This includes not killing and lying etc) However, when it comes to things that wont keep my society from functioning, I have no way to determine if it is right or wrong. Thus I must arbitrarily chose what is to be allowed and what is not.
I guess my main questions are:
Isn’t ethical relativism the same as ethical nihilism? Doesn’t relativism say that there is no real moral or immoral? Thats why no one society is any more right than another. There is no right. Just arbitrary decisions made by the different groups. I never thought of it like that. The fact that my moral decisions, no matter what, are completely arbitrary. It seems to me that ethical relativism and ethical nihilism are the same and if I accept them I must agree that any moral decision is arbitrary.
The only decisions I see as not being arbitrary are those that keep the society from collapsing. (Such as lying and killing would) But there are many, many ethical judgments we must make that will not affect our society this way. Without an objective standard how can I possibly pick? Its simply arbitrary.
Its starting to seem that either we should all just become savage beasts again and do whatever we feel, or accept there is an objective ethical standard. I don’t think nature ever intended for us to gain our ability to reason. I truly don’t feel there is an objective standard to ethics but I don’t feel we can make ethical judgments arbitrarily. I think we are screwed. Maybe there is no such objective standard but our level of intelligence and ability to live together and perform controversial actions made it necessary to have what doesn’t exist.
And finally, Ive been reading Principia Ethica and I have a question. Moore talks about how we have to find what actions we ought to do based on the good on the world. (I haven’t finished it, but its something like this) My question is, why good and not bad? Without relating to religion, what reason do we have to do good and not bad? I mean why good and not bad? We can find out what is definitely good as Moore suggests in his book, but that, to me, doesnt answer why we should do good and not bad.
Any thoughts?
Sorry for the long post… Im confused if you cant tell.
Race is an arbitrary construct, yet no one denies its importance in modern life and society.
Money is an arbitrary construct, yet no one denies its importance in modern life and society.
The whole trick of normative ethics is just that – their normative nature. So while ethical rules may change from society to society, within each society the rules do exist as real items. You can think of it in almost a Darwinian sense, where societies with better moral systems will outcompete societies with inferior moral systems because they are run better.
Ethical relativism and ethical nihilism are not the same in the sense that ethical relativism claims that ethics are relative to ends which are subjective and ethical nihilism is better rephrased as no ethics. Nihilism is lack of purpose. Relativism states that there is no objective purpose.
They are similar in the sense that they both claim there is no objective truth, but differ in that nihilism denies subjective truth as well. Ethical relativism is closer related if not the ethical branch of existentialism. Both relate truth on subjectivity. There is no right or wrong less what is done to break or comply with the subjective end[s] of a morality system.
As for the question:
Good is desired over bad in one system because good in that one system is viewed as beneficial. In another system that same thing(action, behavior) could be viewed as neutral or even bad. Good is judged upon whether the ends of the moral system are complied with or not. Even things done with the purpose of survival are not objectively good. There is no absolute good, and there is no absolute bad.
I arrived at an answer that seems close to Xunzian’s, but slightly different. He says that while ethical rules can change from society to society, they exist as real terms within each society.
I like this statement, but it seems clearer to state that, while yes, ethical rules can differ widely among cultures and the societies they make up, they have objectivity when applied to the culture for which they were made. Ethical relativism, in this example, would come from cultural relativism, a long-lens look at how many different cultures contend with the same ethical issues. It may be just as accurate to say that the world holds many objective ethical realities. “Objective” doesn’t necessarily have to mean “singular,” it would seem.
Now where I really get tied up in knots thinking about this is when I try to peg down what a “society” or “culture” is. Societies are fluid entities - history shows us that they grow, change, fuse, and splinter off. So while the ethics and morals that make up one society might be objective, they quickly become insufficient as those norms inevitably change.
I would guess, then, that the fluid nature of societies introduces relativism all over again, which once again are hardened into objectivity once the new norms are absorbed. As if there would have to be a tension between objective ethics and societies that constantly throw subjectivity back into the mix, like they oscillate back and forth. Is that ridiculous?
Ow. I’m getting a nosebleed. What do any of you think?
As for Moore? I haven’t gotten that far yet, so I’m at a disadvantage, but I would think that we choose the good over the bad because the true good leads to happiness and fulfillment, while the bad, even if it feels or seems good, ultimately won’t.
I sidestep that problem by assuming that humans do have a certain amount of morality ‘hardwired’ in, so the differences between societies are subtle and so the changes that occur when societies rub against each other is, ultimately, fairly limited.
Both sociological and psychological research supports this assumption, so I feel it is a valid point to make.
ethics is the interesting side of the relative/absolute debate. I’m wondering if there’s a cultural construt that’s common to all societies, can we treat it like an absolute?
Freud said every culture has/had an incest taboo. I don’t know if that’s true, but if it is, can we treat that issue with ethical absolutism?
John Searle says every society ever has used some form of currency. If that’s true, and it sounds true to me, is money then some kind of absolute?
it’s like a self defeiting profacy-think about it and it happens
whats your weakness-little boys or pussy
if the glove don’t fit just aquit
hopefully the right pussey puts its sent out
it’s not so easy to find the right dick
just don’t be afraid of it big one of course
next question-there better be enough food-ain’t that a bitch- theres no water-better live by a river or your fucked-bitch i told you I drink bottled water-well I need some water-well I need some pussy
what ever happened to wells-well it taste bad-to fucken bad
“I sidestep that problem by assuming that humans do have a certain amount of morality ‘hardwired’ in, so the differences between societies are subtle and so the changes that occur when societies rub against each other is, ultimately, fairly limited.”
Strange, I feel the exact opposite. I dont think humans have ANY moral code hardwired into them at all. And I think the common belief that it does (Which I think is most surely mistaken) is caused by the similarities we see in the societies around today and in the past. (As you are pointing out)
If we go back thousands of years ago when people weren’t civilized, we’d have none of the moral ideas we have now. We would kill, we would rape, we would steal, we would cheat others out of food and shelter, etc. You see a woman you want, you kill the male with her and rape her. Someone around you makes you mad (such as another tribe member, say), you hit him over the head with a rock and kill him. We are just like every other animal when it comes to hardwiring. We wouldn’t feel bad about it and wouldn’t care.
The only reason I feel we have so many similarities among cultures around the world, is that these similarities are almost a necessity for the survival of the society. If societies allowed killing and rape and lying and stealing they wouldn’t last long at all. Especially with other societies around them who don’t do these things, thus becoming more powerful, larger, and more efficient than yours. So even if a society did allow these things, they would be defeated by rival societies.
Thus, through societal training and conditioning we grow up and by the time we are 18, we feel as if these moral standards are somehow hardwired into our brain. They aren’t. Why do parents have to teach kids not to hit others and to not steal? Why do we have such a problem with cheating in school and theft? All the evidence shows we AREN’T hardwired and I don’t see how anyone could think we are.
Thats how I know ethics is not objective. I’m just trying to deal with the implications of this. I have a hard time dealing with the idea that no matter what I decide to be ethical, its arbitrary. Even if its to increase the good in the world. Why good over bad? If there is no moral or immoral, right or wrong, why would I chose good over bad? Choosing good would require an objective standard saying good is what we should strive for. Why not strive for killing, stealing, and rape. After all, its just as justified as not doing those things. And actually, I shouldn’t even differentiate between good and bad as I did above. There is no difference.
Interesting. But then there’s another issue to consider.
Fine, let’s assume that morals AREN’T hardwired. A human mind is a blank slate, and without being taught to believe so, “We wouldn’t feel bad about it and we wouldn’t care” if we hit someone over the head with a rock, or raped someone simply because it was something we felt like doing at the time.
Can we really say that this is true? Think about it: if this was the absolute and final truth, then there would be no reason for a moral climate to exist. It, of necessity, would never get going, because it would be completely alien to the way we approach the world. We wouldn’t feel a lack of morals, according to this argument, ever. The system we call “morals,” if it wasn’t an expression of our makeup somehow, would be an impossibility. Tigers, as far as I know, have no morals. But people do.
It DID come along. Are we to say that this was entirely engineered by someone in power? While the conventions of a society are partly set in motion by those trying to counteract the more vicious side of our nature, they do happen. Indeed, it still happens as we reevaluate our morals from time to time. Something in our essential human nature compels us to say that this is right and this is wrong. If it wasn’t as much a part of us as our limbs or eyes, it couldn’t possibly have happened. I’m not saying that it’s hardwired, exactly, because I think it places a little too much stock in a mechanical metaphor of our neurology, but it came from somewhere. It didn’t just crash to the earth from space, and those in power to set laws wouldn’t have made morals if they couldn’t conceive of them.
That is making a person out of nature, anthropomorphising it. Nature never “intends” anything.
If we define good as “what one ought to do”, and bad as “what one ought not to do”, then we have to do the good by definition. However, the question remains: what is good?
I think we should do good by definition; however, I don’t think we can find out what is “definitely good” (haven’t read Moore’s book; however, sounds like just another holy lie).
My Nietzschean stance is that might is right. Why? Because I say so, that’s why!
Morality follows from the will to power. If I rape someone, that may make me feel big, but it makes them feel small. This feeling small is the feeling of a relative lack of power. Society, therefore, exercises power over potential rapists for the sake of their potential victims - for the sake of the power of their potential victims. I, as a potential rapist, do not actually rape people, because of the repercussions that might have. It is all a question of power.
You make a very interesting point which I will admit I have never thought about. I’m not anthropologist but Ill try to explain how morality could be created by people with no such notion. We definitely have a way to decide whether or not to do something. Its not a moral decision, its a survival decision. Although I may not naturally think it morally wrong to rape someone, I would not do it if I felt the consequences would be detrimental. IE: The dominant male killing me. You are right that we would not ever naturally feel a lack of morals. I’m not claiming someone just woke up some day and said “Hey, Ive got a revolutionary idea! Lets declare some actions ok and some not” However, that doesn’t mean the idea of morals couldn’t ever come into existence. We descended from simpler animals with little communication skills that lived together. These descendants had no right or wrong. The dominant male leader had his way with all the females and the females either agreed or they weren’t allowed in the group. It is of course better to be in the group because you will survive. The other males don’t touch the other females or steal from the dominant male because they will get beat up, killed, or exiled. (Unless they feel they can challenge and defeat the male, thus becoming the dominant male themselves) Thus we have conduct that we will do and wont do. We continue to evolve and get more and more intelligence. Caveman-like humans lived in groups with their family members. Through evolution we have gained the ability to care for our family members. This isn’t from morals, its also because of survival. Those who care about their group will help protect their group members. Thus the entire group has an increased chance of survival. Those who don’t stick together and don’t care about their families don’t do as well and have less chance of passing on their genes. Thus we inherent the ability to care for each other. This may have been necessary due to our lack of strength and speed. We needed other capabilities, IE intelligence, living in groups, and the feeling of affection for those we live with. At this point maybe there still is rape, murder, etc. Maybe if a son gets mad enough at the father he will kill him. Or maybe at this point we care too much for our families to do this and the father will remain dominant until he is simply too weak to function properly. Like I said, I’m not anthropologist. However, once we develop language, I think, is the key to modern morality. When we can convey complex ideas, we can explain what we want to be done and not to be done. A father can start telling his sons its not ok to do certain things. The dominant male would like the other males NOT to kill him or others because this would weaken his group. He also doesn’t want any of the females being taken from him. Being told this from birth is probably very effective. Also as I said before, societies that do this are more likely to survive. They will have better cooperation and become larger and more powerful. Thus in the long run societies that make those actions wrong will do better than those that didn’t. I think morality happened VERY VERY VERY slowly just as evolution did and its hard to explain EXACTLY how it came to be because it happened so slowly. Its like trying to explain exactly how we lost our tail in the past. We know the basic reason we did (We came out of the trees) but we cant (or I cant) explain step by step exactly what happened. I think the same is with morality. It started with male dominance and slowly turned into communication where some are told not to do things. Those that do the telling do so for the betterment of themselves and all others. And even if this is a rare thing to happen, the group that does do it will survive and do better and eliminate those that don’t.
As for tigers, they have no ability to reason. They also did not go under any of the same evolutionary changes as us that make it possible to formulate an ethical standard. They would need to develop a group oriented social condition and the intelligence to be able to conceive of what we call morality. No other animal can do this.
So I guess, in a sense, I am saying morality DID come from those with power. I haven’t put much thought into it and I’m typing this as it comes to my head so I could be way off or I could disagree with myself later. However, this seems to be the most common sense way morality could have come into being.
I never said there was something wrong with it. Through evolution we dont want to die. We want to be happy and reproduce. Thats the whole reason societies formed in the first place. If you want a better chance of surviving, live in a group. Why else would females stay in groups where they are essentially used by the males? Why else would the non-dominant males stick around? If you live in a group its much easier to survive. You get all the benefits with being in that group. Small groups eventually give rise to large societies. This is possible most likely through communication and morality. We can communicate what is acceptable to us and what is not (as talked about above, probably came about through power) and these things will be things that better our societies chance of survival. (Afterall, why else would you make them good or bad?) Societies get bigger, we make bigger advances, we become more civilized like we are today. To this day we don’t do things that would end in the collapse of our society. Lying. Killing. Stealing. etc. (Well, we are told we aren’t supposed to…And the majority follow the rules most of the time) This isnt because its hardwired, its because we want the benefits of our society. I dont know about you, but Id rather tell the truth and not murder than have to fend for myself in the wild.
I didn’t mean for my statement to be taken literally. I simply meant that we as a species have evolved to a point that we feel we require that which does not exist. We don’t want our moral decisions to be arbitrary yet we cant find an objective standard. (because there is none) This type of conflict arises because we are intelligent enough to wonder why certain actions should be performed and why others shouldn’t. That doesn’t mean that some should and some shouldn’t. We are just capable of inquiring about it. Its like God. We are smart enough that (some) feel we have to have a creator yet at the same time we can never find such a proof. In the same way we are smart enough to feel we need an objective moral standard yet at the same time we can never discover it. The reason why is the same in both. Because the two goals don’t exist.
The reason I call some decisions NOT arbitrary is because the reason is to keep society from collapsing. I’m not saying that keeping society intact is objectively right. Its not. (nothing is) But we feel it should be (subjective thought) and thus we make moral codes that will keep society around. In that sense its not arbitrary. However if we felt that we should destroy society, then we could make our moral codes based on the principle that one should not do what will keep society intact. In both cases the moral code is not arbitrary, although not objective. However, when it comes to actions that will not end in the destruction of the society, we have nothing to base the action against to judge if we should do it. Our only true reason to do or not do an action is whether or not it destroys our society. When it wont affect it either way, we must simply arbitrarily decide if its moral or not. And that is what bothers me.
I appreciate the posts. Its nice to speak about this to people who actually have put thought into it. Especially since there are view points differing from mine. I’m used to either the whole morality from the bible mentality or simply a complete lack of interest from others.
[/quote]
I’ll post more later, busy bee right now, ya know?
I think raptor’s progression makes a certain amount of sense, I just think the seed was already there. We all have a certain amount of innate moral knowledge.[/url]