Theists often assert that God's existence is the only way for there to be objective morality. But there's a problem with this, summed up by the so-called Euthyphro Dilemma: is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it's good? If the former is true, then morality is just the arbitrary whim of God, and God could command for children to be tortured, or that James Blunt be a compulsory part of people's CD collections, and that would have to be considered good. If the latter is true, then morality is independent of God, so we don't need him to order us around.

It's then said, 'Well, goodness is a part of God.' But what does this mean? Goodness according to whose standards? His own? If so, then that's like saying, 'A part of God is a part of God, and God says that part of him is good.' So, here's the nub of the question for theists: if God commanded people to kill their grannies, should they do it? Would it be good?

The answer is no, and that is that. Morality is what is socially acceptable. The Bible says slaves should be beaten, but that's a bad thing, right?

(July 4, 2010 at 1:22 pm)chasm Wrote: The answer is no, and that is that. Morality is what is socially acceptable. The Bible says slaves should be beaten, but that's a bad thing, right?

So morality is what's socially acceptable, and nothing more? That surely confounds the idea of moral progress. Maybe you don't believe in moral progress, but denying any objectivity seems to leave us in a difficult position. In a society where half of people believe that euthanasia is right and half believe it's wrong, who is right? How do we decide what to do? You may be right that morality is nothing more than what society disapproves of, or approves of, but moral decision-making seems necessary to some extent.

Hmm, it seems to me that moral progress is only possible without moral absolutes in whatever dogma. So relative morality is needed for moral progress.

In a society where half of the people believe that euthanasia is right and half believe it's wrong, we should enable the ones that want euthanasia for themselves and protect the ones who don't want it against it. There is no simple right or wrong in moral to be found.

(July 4, 2010 at 2:52 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Hmm, it seems to me that moral progress is only possible without moral absolutes in whatever dogma. So relative morality is needed for moral progress.

In a society where half of the people believe that euthanasia is right and half believe it's wrong, we should enable the ones that want euthanasia for themselves and protect the ones who don't want it against it. There is no simple right or wrong in moral to be found.

We should avoid conflating relativism and consequentialism. Consequentialism bases morality on the consequences of an action, and is hence free of moral absolutes (this I'm in favour of), whilst relativism says that morality is essentially just the preferences of the society or individual. So consequentialism is relative, but only to the situation, not to anything else. People's wellbeing (and that would include non-humans) is the best basis for moral judgement, IMO.

(July 5, 2010 at 3:57 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote:

(July 4, 2010 at 2:52 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Hmm, it seems to me that moral progress is only possible without moral absolutes in whatever dogma. So relative morality is needed for moral progress.

In a society where half of the people believe that euthanasia is right and half believe it's wrong, we should enable the ones that want euthanasia for themselves and protect the ones who don't want it against it. There is no simple right or wrong in moral to be found.

We should avoid conflating relativism and consequentialism.

Didn't know I was doing that.

(July 5, 2010 at 3:57 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: Consequentialism bases morality on the consequences of an action, and is hence free of moral absolutes (this I'm in favour of),....

It may be free of moral absolutes (not an achievement reallly since "moral absolute" is an oxymoron if you are a relativist like me) but it isn't free from subjective moral judgement, i.e. subjective moral judgement of consequences. You know good consequences versus bad consequences.

(July 5, 2010 at 3:57 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: ...whilst relativism says that morality is essentially just the preferences of the society or individual. So consequentialism is relative, but only to the situation, not to anything else.

That's enough for me to call it relative. Why euphemize the relativism of consequentialism? Are we to shame ourselves for relativism? Every benchmark we set for moral goal we set

(July 5, 2010 at 3:57 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: People's wellbeing (and that would include non-humans) is the best basis for moral judgement, IMO.

That's a relative moral judgement. I might share it, but it still is relative. That should pose no problem at all, as long as we acknowledge that fact and don't hide it under the carpet with fancy names like 'consequentialism'. In fact facing it head on should provoke new thoughts from a sceptical critical thinker in the same way as you do in this one sentence where you say "and that would include non-humans". For that in fact is a critique of the more common statement that "People's (as in humans) wellbeing is the best basis for moral judgement". In this one sentence you show how relativistic moral judgement enables moral progress.

I like that "IMO" addition to your sentence. It shows the relativism...

---

PS: Beside the goal that you use to base moral judgement IMO there are others that need to be added because they don't necessarily follow from your goal. For instance, that autonomous, critical thinking is a valuable asset for everyone.

(July 5, 2010 at 4:34 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(July 5, 2010 at 3:57 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: People's wellbeing (and that would include non-humans) is the best basis for moral judgement, IMO.

That's a relative moral judgement. I might share it, but it still is relative. That should pose no problem at all, as long as we acknowledge that fact and don't hide it under the carpet with fancy names like 'consequentialism'. In fact facing it head on should provoke new thoughts from a sceptical critical thinker in the same way as you do in this one sentence where you say "and that would include non-humans". For that in fact is a critique of the more common statement that "People's (as in humans) wellbeing is the best basis for moral judgement". In this one sentence you show how relativistic moral judgement enables moral progress.

I like that "IMO" addition to your sentence. It shows the relativism...

---

PS: Beside the goal that you use to base moral judgement IMO there are others that need to be added because they don't necessarily follow from your goal. For instance, that autonomous, critical thinking is a valuable asset for everyone.

I wasn't just trying to use fancy names. These are generally accepted philosophical terms. From Wiki:

Quote:Moral relativism may be any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions regarding the differences in moral or ethical judgments between different people and cultures:

Descriptive relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely to arise.[1]
Meta-ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.[2]
Normative relativism, further still, is the prescriptive or normative position that as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.[1

As for consequentialism:

Quote:Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action (or create a structure for judgment, see rule consequentialism). Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence. This view is often expressed as the aphorism "The ends justify the means".

I've no problem with admitting that my morality is relative in the sense you mean it -that it is relative to each situation- just not that it is relative in either of the latter two cases cited (meta-ethical and normative). Also, autonomous critical thinking is generally better for everyone, as science has been the crucial force in improving our lives. There is a case to be made for blissful ignorance, I suppose, and I'm not sure I regard rationality as good in itself... but most people would rather not live in false hope if possible (though perhaps organised religion suggests otherwise).

I strongly disagree with normative relativism but meta-ethical relativism is not merely a position, but historical fact. Denying meta-ethical relativism is denial of human history. Without it moral progress is impossible because than the morals of ancient Rome are defined the same as the morals of modern Japan, which is absurd.

Quote:Without it moral progress is impossible because than the morals of ancient Rome are defined the same as the morals of modern Japan, which is absurd.

Interesting point. Based I presume on the problematic notion of 'normatve values'. In practice they tend to be the values of the dominant power paradigm.

My view is that morality is based on pragamtism and self interest. These things do not change. What changes are perceptions of self interest and of the pragmatic.

My view is there is no such thing as 'moral progress' as a principle.

EG: Slavery was accepted for centuries because it was a cheap source of labour. It was effective, but never efficient. It only became immoral when it ceased to be cost effective.

My views is that the rules surounding warefare are also esentailly pragmatic,as are notions of law and justice (rarely the same thing).

(July 5, 2010 at 5:51 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: I strongly disagree with normative relativism but meta-ethical relativism is not merely a position, but historical fact. Denying meta-ethical relativism is denial of human history. Without it moral progress is impossible because than the morals of ancient Rome are defined the same as the morals of modern Japan, which is absurd.

That's descriptive relativism, I think (which is obviously true). Meta-ethical relativism would often seem to entail normative relativism:

Wikipedia Wrote:Moral relativism maintains that all moral judgments have their origins either in societal or in individual standards, and that no single objective standard exists by which one can assess the truth of a moral proposition. Meta-ethical relativists, in general, believe that the descriptive properties of terms such as "good", "bad", "right", and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions, but only to societal convention and personal preference. Given the same set of verifiable facts, some societies or individuals will have a fundamental disagreement about what one ought to do based on societal or individual norms, and one cannot adjudicate these using some independent standard of evaluation. The latter standard will always be societal or personal and not universal, unlike, for example, the scientific standards for assessing temperature or for determining mathematical truths. Some philosophers maintain that moral relativism entails non-cognitivism. Most relativist theories are forms of moral subjectivism, though not all subjectivist theories are relativistic.

Let's not get bogged down in semantics, though. (Bit late now, you might think). Basically, we agree. Morality is not just subjective, nor is it the will of God.

padraic Wrote:My view is that morality is based on pragamtism and self interest. These things do not change. What changes are perceptions of self interest and of the pragmatic.

My view is there is no such thing as 'moral progress' as a principle.

EG: Slavery was accepted for centuries because it was a cheap source of labour. It was effective, but never efficient. It only became immoral when it ceased to be cost effective.

My views is that the rules surounding warefare are also esentailly pragmatic,as are notions of law and justice (rarely the same thing).

Slavery was largely abolished due to abolitionists like Wilberforce in the UK, and the American Civil War saw the end to it in America. Cost effectiveness probably had little to do with it. Similarly, the idea that morality is purely self-interest is flawed. Otherwise, why would people like me want better conditions for farm animals like battery farmed chickens? It doesn't benefit me in any way (except perhaps as an alleviation of my sense of guilt). In warfare, it would almost certainly be beneficial to kill soldiers and civilians indiscriminately, yet most people are opposed to doing so. This again suggests more than mere pragmatism. Pragmatism certainly plays a part, but it isn't the only aspect.