Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-12-2014, 09:55 AM
Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism
Wikipedia defines meta-ethical moral relativism, to be a view that in disagreements about what is moral, no one is objectively wrong or right.

Would you agree with this view of morality?

Would you say those that held to this view of moral relativism are wrong, and if so why?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 01:54 PM
RE: Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism
(09-12-2014 09:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Wikipedia defines meta-ethical moral relativism, to be a view that in disagreements about what is moral, no one is objectively wrong or right.

Would you agree with this view of morality?

Would you say those that held to this view of moral relativism are wrong, and if so why?

No, I don't agree with that view. It can be hard to hash out, though, since people often mean different things when they talk about "right" and "wrong" in an ethical sense, so they end up actually talking past each other during discussions on morality and don't always realize it.

People can be right or wrong, objectively, when they talk about morality, even from within the framework of their chosen definitions of what makes something moral (like a utilitarian thinking that performing a certain action is moral because they believe it causes a net increase in utility when, in fact, it has some downside they aren't aware of that tips the balance). People can also be right or wrong, objectively, about their entire moral framework (like people who think that morality is dependent on the will of God when, in fact, no God exists).

I'm just thinking out loud.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 01:54 PM
RE: Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism
"Objective" only exists as a concept, regardless of the topic. As to whether one is "right" or "wrong," it's relative.

As to whether I "agree" with meta-ethical moral relativism, I suppose I do in principle but not in it's often touted consequences (we can't judge differing moralities to our own). Just because one doesn't have the means to assert absolute objective morality does not mean it's not possible to analyze the worth of other moral theories. People may be utilizing different measuring sticks, but they're all sizing up the same thing. Some measuring sticks work better than others.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 02:19 PM
RE: Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism
(09-12-2014 01:54 PM)KnowtheSilence Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 09:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Wikipedia defines meta-ethical moral relativism, to be a view that in disagreements about what is moral, no one is objectively wrong or right.

Would you agree with this view of morality?

Would you say those that held to this view of moral relativism are wrong, and if so why?

No, I don't agree with that view. It can be hard to hash out, though, since people often mean different things when they talk about "right" and "wrong" in an ethical sense, so they end up actually talking past each other during discussions on morality and don't always realize it.

People can be right or wrong, objectively, when they talk about morality, even from within the framework of their chosen definitions of what makes something moral (like a utilitarian thinking that performing a certain action is moral because they believe it causes a net increase in utility when, in fact, it has some downside they aren't aware of that tips the balance). People can also be right or wrong, objectively, about their entire moral framework (like people who think that morality is dependent on the will of God when, in fact, no God exists).

Would you say Nietzsche is wrong in an objective sense, when he rejected enlightenment perspectives of his, time, and stated:

"What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. "
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 02:38 PM
RE: Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism
(09-12-2014 01:54 PM)KnowtheSilence Wrote:  People can also be right or wrong, objectively, about their entire moral framework (like people who think that morality is dependent on the will of God when, in fact, no God exists).

God's existence is appeal to for the externes of objective moral framework, if God no longer existed, most theists recognize meta-ethical moral relativism as the viable alternative. And in fact see the arguments from atheists for something other than meta-ethical moral relativism, is severely lacking, silly even, and failing to establish it self as anything more that this sort of moral relativism in a different skirt.

I would like to here an argument for why meta-ethical moral relativism, is wrong, from a purely godless perspective. How would you argue against an atheists who held such a view. Arguing that the objective morality proposed by theists doesn't hold up, doesn't really help your case.

Can you provide one example of something that is objectively wrong morally? And also what makes it objectively wrong?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 02:43 PM
RE: Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism
(09-12-2014 02:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 01:54 PM)KnowtheSilence Wrote:  No, I don't agree with that view. It can be hard to hash out, though, since people often mean different things when they talk about "right" and "wrong" in an ethical sense, so they end up actually talking past each other during discussions on morality and don't always realize it.

People can be right or wrong, objectively, when they talk about morality, even from within the framework of their chosen definitions of what makes something moral (like a utilitarian thinking that performing a certain action is moral because they believe it causes a net increase in utility when, in fact, it has some downside they aren't aware of that tips the balance). People can also be right or wrong, objectively, about their entire moral framework (like people who think that morality is dependent on the will of God when, in fact, no God exists).

Would you say Nietzsche is wrong in an objective sense, when he rejected enlightenment perspectives of his, time, and stated:

"What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. "

I don't know enough about Nietzsche to say. Did he mean "good" in a moral sense? What did he mean by "power?" Was he saying it was the highest good, or just one good among many?

One of my favorite philosophers/bloggers is developing a moral theory he calls Empowerment Ethics. He's a Nietzsche fan, but I'm not sure the extent to which his thinking matches Nietzsche's or if they are talking about quite the same thing when they talk about "power."

I'm just thinking out loud.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 02:59 PM
RE: Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism
(09-12-2014 02:38 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  God's existence is appeal to for the externes of objective moral framework, if God no longer existed, most theists recognize meta-ethical moral relativism as the viable alternative. And in fact see the arguments from atheists for something other than meta-ethical moral relativism, is severely lacking, silly even, and failing to establish it self as anything more that this sort of moral relativism in a different skirt.
Nonsense. Theists don't "recognize" that relativism is the "only" alternative to theistic ethics. They assert it. It's their main selling point, aside from "everything looks so complex that it must be designed."
The apologists have done such a good job of it that they've managed to blind themselves and others to the fact that ethics as a philosophical field has been mostly secular for the better part of the past three centuries. The fact that you can find a lot of atheists who are anti-realists or relativists is no more to the point than the fact that most theists are unreflective divine command theorists.

(09-12-2014 02:38 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I would like to here an argument for why meta-ethical moral relativism, is wrong, from a purely godless perspective. How would you argue against an atheists who held such a view. Arguing that the objective morality proposed by theists doesn't hold up, doesn't really help your case.
Watch this.
Read these.

I'm just thinking out loud.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes KnowtheSilence's post
09-12-2014, 04:35 PM
RE: Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism
(09-12-2014 02:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  "What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. "

I think dude meant man in a general mankind sorta sense. Kinda like a metaphysical manifest destiny.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
09-12-2014, 04:37 PM
RE: Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism
(09-12-2014 02:59 PM)KnowtheSilence Wrote:  Nonsense. Theists don't "recognize" that relativism is the "only" alternative to theistic ethics. They assert it.

Well, if there is a viable alternative beside relativism, I would like to hear it, hence the reason for my post.

Quote:The apologists have done such a good job of it that they've managed to blind themselves and others to the fact that ethics as a philosophical field has been mostly secular for the better part of the past three centuries.

For the last three centuries various philosophers have proposed various secular views of morality, and the one that appears to be the most coherent, and fairly impossible to refute, are ones that suggest a sort a meta-ethical moral relativism. I personally despise the very idea of moral relativism, but even I have to eat my hat and concede when arguing with a moral relativist.

Quote:The fact that you can find a lot of atheists who are anti-realists or relativists is no more to the point than the fact that most theists are unreflective divine command theorists.

In my view moral relativist appear to be the reflective ones, while atheists who reject relativism, appear in some sense incoherent, and non-reflective. There's a few atheists here who hold to moral relativism, and it hard for me to see any flaws in their logic or reasoning, which is not the case for those who seem to reject it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 04:43 PM
RE: Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism
(09-12-2014 04:37 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well, if there is a viable alternative beside relativism, I would like to hear it, hence the reason for my post.

Jebus
Why not just cut the crap ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: