Moral Relativism Vs. Absolute Morality, and Does morality evolve?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-11-2011, 07:31 PM
RE: Moral Relativism Vs. Absolute Morality, and Does morality evolve?
(06-11-2011 06:05 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  Our social concepts are linked into a cause-and-effect logical chain: survival – needs – values – ethics – social contract – morality - honour.

Zero-state +1 positive. That's what you got.
"Honour" is your Agenda - which is Identity, fractally compressed, as it were. Thus, it is remarkably simple for me to understand where you're at in terms of my morality.

You already have Identity with cantor. It becomes a function of love that honor is recognized in this unit.

Love is Void, thus love is neutral in moral terms - positive and negative are attraction and repulsion - and love is the neg-entropy generator, I tell you what! Big Grin

So you're still Zat, but your agenda of honour is "better" than zero-state. Wink

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
12-11-2011, 06:13 AM
RE: Moral Relativism Vs. Absolute Morality, and Does morality evolve?
Morality is relative (well technically everything is relative, but for the argument, lets not get too literal) but, that does not mean that it is arbitrary.

Instead of the nihilist pessimism that is being spouted off here, I wouldn't say that morality is entirely random. With the intelligence of humans comes the ability to better the standards of living, the political freedoms, and the happiness levels of certain individuals. The quest for absolute morality lies in the utilitarian good which benefits as many people as possible, while protecting the freedom of individuals.

I think that this balance is inherently a non-subjective form of morality, that is relative in the way that it needs context to be considered right or wrong, yet not simply a random construct of humans.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2011, 08:21 AM
 
RE: Moral Relativism Vs. Absolute Morality, and Does morality evolve?
(12-11-2011 06:13 AM)needlr Wrote:  Instead of the nihilist pessimism that is being spouted off here.....

Was this really necessary? Huh Rolleyes
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Zatamon's post
10-12-2011, 06:57 PM
RE: Moral Relativism Vs. Absolute Morality, and Does morality evolve?
(06-06-2011 10:13 PM)godofskeptic Wrote:  So i've been thinking about morality for a long time, but I can't decide if morality is relative or if it is absolute, and if it evolves!

Sam Harris always say that morality is like health, you never say that a person who likes to vomit is healthy! (he gives many examples). He also said that you don't question your doctor when he tells you you have a problem. So to Harris, morality is fairly objective and we just need to discover the moral values (or i am wrong and he says something else?)

I sometimes think morality is relative, but then again it can be absolute!Huh
What do you guys/girls thinks?

Also, do you think morality evolves?

I am not familiar with your quotations from Sam Harris in this instance.
While I do like some of his writings I don't think he believes in moral absolutes.
A person who likes to vomit may have a weird fetish, but I am not sure they can be considered insane. Is it immoral to refuse to thrash a desperate masochist?Huh

As for morality evolving we need to ask ourselves---what is the common good?
This is not at all easy. Things can get reall complicated.
Many people oppose intense torture.....consider the scenario whereby a large group of children are to be slaugtered if a ransome demand is not met and where one of the perpetrators has been caught and held in custody. Is his torture warranted?
In utilitarian ethics it probably would be.

What would Kant say? He was concerned with asking yourself, if the situation applied to you, would you see it as the social moral norm.
Such moral imperatives can lead to all mannerof dilemmas ; maybe in some instance we use this as an excuse.

Have morals evolved? If our perceived morality is simply dependent on enculturation, or memes as Dawkins likes to call it, so that we can exist and enjoy ourselves I am not sure that such can be called morality. I would like to think that there is genuine morality and altruism. If I am honest with myself "self" tends to get in the way.Sad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mr Woof's post
11-12-2011, 05:26 AM
 
RE: Moral Relativism Vs. Absolute Morality, and Does morality evolve?
I am a moral relativist in some moral matters, and an absolute moralist in others. This is under the premise that that some morality is relative, especially religious morality, whereas some moral judgments are absolute, especially regarding murder and violence.
Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2011, 08:39 AM
RE: Moral Relativism Vs. Absolute Morality, and Does morality evolve?
I'd say it's pretty clear that morality evolves. Just look at the histories of slavery, women's rights, and sexual mores in western society.
And that's just the easy ones.

Our moral sense is a product of internal (evolved) sense and our social/political environment.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
11-12-2011, 01:05 PM
RE: Moral Relativism Vs. Absolute Morality, and Does morality evolve?
Zero-state is absolute to the individual. Ethical standard is a function of agenda. My ethical standard of "i love" makes me often appear moral, but I define the terms differently. For instance, it is an act of will to present myself in the format of "i love," making it my personal ethical standard; but my morality is just how I am through experience with no active willful components. Wink

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2013, 02:21 PM (This post was last modified: 24-12-2013 02:25 PM by ghostexorcist.)
RE: Moral Relativism Vs. Absolute Morality, and Does morality evolve?
This book may interest members. I intend to buy it.

http://www.brill.com/products/book/evolv...conscience

Don't let the current ungodly price scare you. A cheaper softcover edition will be coming out at the same time. The editor told me on Facebook that it will be $29.

Correction: Amazon is pre-selling it at a reduced price. It is $23.67.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolved-Morality-B...Conscience
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2013, 08:17 PM
RE: Moral Relativism Vs. Absolute Morality, and Does morality evolve?
Morality is relative to some extent, but not completely arbitrary.

Morality in almost every culture is based on the golden rule: "treat
others like you would like to be treated." Because of this, there are
large overlaps between the moral values of different cultures.
In almost every culture it is generally wrong to kill another person
(with some exceptions like when being provoked, threatened etc)
This rule is easily deduced from the golden rule, because most people
do not want to be killed.

Still, there are also various reasons why morals differ among cultures.
Not all cultures value the same things. In some cultures, free
speech is considered more valuable, then being free from being insulted.
In other cultures, it is the other way around.

In some cultures, "others" extends only to people of the own tribe or race.
For other cultures, "others" extend to all people, and even animals
or zygotes. Here, science can play a role I think. Science can tell us,
how much "other" are like us, feel the same kind of pain etc.

In complicated moral disputes, where the rights of one person
are weighted against the rights of another, a clear answer cannot
really be derived from the golden rule. For such ethical questions
one could say that morality is relative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2013, 12:30 AM
RE: Moral Relativism Vs. Absolute Morality, and Does morality evolve?
There are some actions, such as rape, where all morally competent individuals would find repugnant. This of course does not mean morality itself in all situations is absolute, however. There are tons of different grey areas where you'd find that most of morality is relative due to the extenuating circumstances one would find themselves in - take for instance, abortion.

If one where to say morality is absolute, that would mean lying for example, would always be wrong, and one who is moral should always refrain from such an act, correct? Say you find yourself in an extenuating circumstance, where you are hiding persecuted Jewish people from the Nazi's during WW2. The Nazi's knock on your door, and ask you if any Jewish people are hiding around the area. Would you lie to them and say there are no Jews in the area that you know of? After all, isn't lying immoral? This is one of the easier examples to grasp, as any sane person understands the consequences of what would happen to the Jewish people in your house if you didn't lie to the Nazi's. In this situation, the moral thing to do would be to lie.

Lying is generally considered immoral, though as morality is relative, you wouldn't always tell the truth seeing from the above example where sometimes lying is in fact not only not immoral, but THE moral thing to do in that situation. Humans as a whole, aside from the psychopaths, have a good idea of what morality is. This does not mean morality is absolute, it just means that humans know what the moral thing to do would be in certain situations, as morality is relative, not to an individual, but to society as a whole.

Nothing is always right or wrong, it just depends on the circumstance. Once one takes in all of the factors, and the repercussions likely to ensue based on what action they take, they must first evaluate the outcomes of their possible options, and choose the one that most minimizes harm, and does the most "good".

Everyday is judgement day. Use your judgement, use reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Freethought's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: