Any Moral Relativists in the House?

[Brian37]

Your complaint about the seeming anti-realism of relativism seems similar in that you're not granting the full tenets of relativism and instead are importing a concept of "real morals" which is foreign to relativism and can't meaningfully be compared.  

-bit like objecting to the notion of a spherical earth - saying that it's incoherent for not accounting for the corners.

When we think that something is wrong, we have a tendency to want to tack on incoherent like a chaser.

---

Moral realism and moral relativism are essential the same thing - a realistic view of morality.

Boru

Exactly.  Descriptive moral relativism is a well established and easily demonstrable fact.  Moral realism simply posits that we're all doing it wrong when we very much do that.    

Not incoherent - babble and gibberish with no cogent angle to logically approach the problem from.  Wrong in point of fact, not the validity of the inference, but the soundness of the assertions.

---

I consider my views on morality to be of the non cognition type. Is it moral relativist? 

Relativism is a cognitivist moral theory.  Moral assertions are reduced to a true property of your ingroup rather than a pure expression of your emotional states (or some other similar aspect of an individual).  

Relativist moralities can be and often are openly hostile to the natural preferences or natural character of their adherents.  They can tell us that what we think is yuck is good, what we think is yum is bad.  That our misery is for our own good, our happiness to be avoided.  That we deserve harm or should expect to be harmed if we step out of bounds even through full on hominid bumblefuckery.

---

The blunt harsh reality is that evolution is about all life, including humans, and in evolution, evolution does not care if cruelty or compassion work. Just like lions will kill the cubs of rivals. 

Perhaps we misnamed ourselves?  Were not the doubly wise ape, we're the moralizing ape. 

Ultimately life finds a way to get to the next generation, by hook or crook. "Morality" and "ethics" still exist however, and life does have the capability of empathy, even if life includes selfish dominance. 

What do you think of the idea that morality is an expression of successful behaviors rooted in genetics?  Biological, rather than cultural relativism.  That we're apprehending something about ourselves and reproductive success, conflict/competition fitness....not something about a thing out in the world or even in our cultures.  That, broadly speaking, any organism with our genetics and in our situations will arrive at ideations about moral properties similar to our own?

I don't think evolution is always genetics. Evolution is also interaction and cooperation, fight or flight, along with environmental factors. Genetics is merely one part of evolution. But not the only part of it.

I can't draw this as an either or issue, evolution is both genetics and environment outside after birth. It is both nature vs nurture, and cruelty and cooperation. Ultimately evolution is a process, and isn't concerned with how life gets to the point of reproduction. Unfortunatly cruelty works, but so does cooperation and compassion. Genes can explain lots of things, but I think it is wrong to call genes the Holy Grail. Genes only explain the shuffle in DNA, but human behaivor after birth unfortunately involves group think, win or lose, and that group think might have the benefit of group survival, but still be based on very false perceptions. 

The Ancient Egyptians were successful for 3000 years or so, falsely believing in Ra, Osirus, Isis and Horus. From their point of view those beliefs were moral, and because of that group think, they had thousands of years of success. But that did not make Ra or Isis or Horus real.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

-bit like objecting to the notion of a spherical earth - saying that it's incoherent for not accounting for the corners.

When we think that something is wrong, we have a tendency to want to tack on incoherent like a chaser.

---

Exactly.  Descriptive moral relativism is a well established and easily demonstrable fact.  Moral realism simply posits that we're all doing it wrong when we very much do that.    

Not incoherent - babble and gibberish with no cogent angle to logically approach the problem from.  Wrong in point of fact, not the validity of the inference, but the soundness of the assertions.

---

Relativism is a cognitivist moral theory.  Moral assertions are reduced to a true property of your ingroup rather than a pure expression of your emotional states (or some other similar aspect of an individual).  

Relativist moralities can be and often are openly hostile to the natural preferences or natural character of their adherents.  They can tell us that what we think is yuck is good, what we think is yum is bad.  That our misery is for our own good, our happiness to be avoided.  That we deserve harm or should expect to be harmed if we step out of bounds even through full on hominid bumblefuckery.

---

Perhaps we misnamed ourselves?  Were not the doubly wise ape, we're the moralizing ape. 


What do you think of the idea that morality is an expression of successful behaviors rooted in genetics?  Biological, rather than cultural relativism.  That we're apprehending something about ourselves and reproductive success, conflict/competition fitness....not something about a thing out in the world or even in our cultures.  That, broadly speaking, any organism with our genetics and in our situations will arrive at ideations about moral properties similar to our own?

I don't think evolution is always genetics. Evolution is also interaction and cooperation, fight or flight, along with environmental factors. Genetics is merely one part of evolution. But not the only part of it.

I can't draw this as an either or issue, evolution is both genetics and environment outside after birth. It is both nature vs nurture, and cruelty and cooperation. Ultimately evolution is a process, and isn't concerned with how life gets to the point of reproduction. Unfortunatly cruelty works, but so does cooperation and compassion. Genes can explain lots of things, but I think it is wrong to call genes the Holy Grail. Genes only explain the shuffle in DNA, but human behaivor after birth unfortunately involves group think, win or lose, and that group think might have the benefit of group survival, but still be based on very false perceptions. 

The Ancient Egyptians were successful for 3000 years or so, falsely believing in Ra, Osirus, Isis and Horus. From their point of view those beliefs were moral, and because of that group think, they had thousands of years of success. But that did not make Ra or Isis or Horus real.

Wrong. Evolution is ALL about genetics.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think evolution is always genetics. Evolution is also interaction and cooperation, fight or flight, along with environmental factors. Genetics is merely one part of evolution. But not the only part of it.

I can't draw this as an either or issue, evolution is both genetics and environment outside after birth. It is both nature vs nurture, and cruelty and cooperation. Ultimately evolution is a process, and isn't concerned with how life gets to the point of reproduction. Unfortunatly cruelty works, but so does cooperation and compassion. Genes can explain lots of things, but I think it is wrong to call genes the Holy Grail. Genes only explain the shuffle in DNA, but human behaivor after birth unfortunately involves group think, win or lose, and that group think might have the benefit of group survival, but still be based on very false perceptions. 

Well, I wasn't wondering whether you thought that evolution was all genetics (though that's an interesting answer)...but, whether or not you think morality might all boil down to genetics?  Might all boil down to evolution?

That we think that so and so is good or bad because that's what an organism like us very likely would think.  As you often find occasion to say, we believe these things because were all humans.

The Ancient Egyptians were successful for 3000 years or so, falsely believing in Ra, Osirus, Isis and Horus. From their point of view those beliefs were moral, and because of that group think, they had thousands of years of success. But that did not make Ra or Isis or Horus real.

I've noticed alot of what I think is conflation between false beliefs and subjective beliefs..and relativist beliefs.

I think though, that if we imagine our genuine cultural relativist they'd be inclined to agree.  That you're right, a moral code being successful wouldn't make it real - but you must be using the term in a novel sense here as the mere existence of the moral code, let alone some assertion to it's success, demonstrates that it is very much and in fact, real.  If they thought morality was about whatever the novel use refers to perhaps they'd call themselves realists, not relativists?

They could suggest that the people living there and at that time had cultural reasons for holding the moral positions that they did, that their moral assertions were a faithful report of those contents.  They weren't reporting a matter of opinion, and their report was not false.  

I think that our hypothetical relativist could use the example of the utility of a moral code to explain why even a relativist, who insists that no culture or code is uniquely privileged, might still believe as a matter of fact that their own culture (or someone else's) is better...and why they can and do insist that a person can be morally incorrect.

[vulcanlogician]

You should be uncomfortable. Skepticism is warranted. Anyone who claims that there are (or may be) "moral facts" needs to explain themselves. And I'll tell you right now: no matter what their position is concerning moral facts, it will be unsatisfying in some way.

You know, it's not the nihilist who suffers anxiety so much as those around him who are trying to grapple with their incredulity and revulsion concerning his nihilism.

I like nihilism as an ethical theory. Did you read the article I linked in the OP? I loved the article.

But I also think the article well demonstrates the problems with nihilism. The first half of the article is great criticism. I like how nihilism "goes for moral realism's throat" so to speak. And the first half of the article hits all those notes... ie. lists all the things I find compelling about moral nihilism.

But, the second half of the article gave me pause. And I would say that (ultimately) what gives me pause isn't the particular points that were made in the second half of the article. But rather, nihilism gives me pause because I'm not quite ready to proceed beyond the point where we reject realism.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, beyond ideas about relativisms incoherence, what are our other reasons for rejecting it? If we're abandoning realism either because we can't maintain it or to assess it critically, but we aren't ready to assume nihilism, that gives us a pretty narrow upper and lower limit. We're down to relativism, subjectivism, and non cognitivism. Of the three, relativism would seem to have the strongest evidentiary case from ethnography.

[vulcanlogician]

Well, beyond ideas about relativisms incoherence, what are our other reasons for rejecting it?  If we're abandoning realism either because we can't maintain it or to assess it critically, but we aren't ready to assume nihilism, that gives us a pretty narrow upper and lower limit.  We're down to relativism, subjectivism, and non cognitivism.  Of the three, relativism would seem to have the strongest evidentiary case from ethnography.

I'm ready to assume nihilism. Like I said, I think it's a fine theory. Is it problem-free? No. But neither is realism.

Incoherence of a theory is enough for me to reject it. But if you're looking for further reasons... consider that you are deliberating with a friend whether she should jump onto the pyre at her husband's funeral. Nihilism would have you ask if that's what she really wanted to do. Realism would steer the debate to whether she is really (in an objective sense) obligated to jump on the pyre or not.

But what kind of questions would relativism have you asking? "Is it culturally mandated that you jump on the pyre?" 

Perhaps it is. Is that satisfying in any way? Good enough to chose an answer because of that?

***

As for subjectivism, meh. I don't really mind it. If we're wrong about realism being true, then we're all just subjectivists anyway. We just don't know it.

[Angrboda]

It's the gut. Culture informs the gut. There's a reason Americans don't eat bugs, and it's the culture. As said in Neo's thread, it's our gut which seems to lead us on morals. And that's culture.

[vulcanlogician]

Yeah. I don't eat bugs personally.

But the point is, I can sit down and have an objective debate about whether it's okay to eat them or not. And we can flat out ignore what my culture or my gut tells me for the duration of that conversation.

[The Grand Nudger]

I get that incoherence would be enough to reject a thing, but I thought we've already posited that relativism may not be incoherent? At any rate, yeah, it would be a question of a cultural mandate - though it's a bit more complicated than just saying so and so. That's the thing that can be true or false and is true of the moral report that puts relativism with the other cognitivist positions.

Relativists can have objective debates about anything that realists do, and probably would if/when they wanted to assert their cultures value, either to a skeptic, a competing culture, or a woman considering tossing herself on the fire. I think that we're mistaking relativism for the idea that cultural mores have no underlying reason whatsoever. That nothing true or false can be said of them, in support of them, or in criticism of them.

---

As for subjectivism, meh. I don't really mind it. If we're wrong about realism being true, then we're all just subjectivists anyway. We just don't know it.

We could all be relativists, and just not know it.  Honestly, though, relativistic moral undercurrents are a feature of contemporary western society (to absolutists constant displeasure). Do you ever wonder or flat out suspect that at east some of your moral apprehensions have been powerfully shaped by human culture? We discuss particular philosophers and their particular views ad infinitum, don't we? The great mass of thinkers effectively made a non entity - and that's going to color our views as well, won't it?

[vulcanlogician]

Do you ever wonder or flat out suspect that at east some of your moral apprehensions have been powerfully shaped by human culture?

Yes. I do wonder. I do suspect.

That's why I wonder at all in the first place what might actually be right or wrong. (Or if that's a good question to ask at all.) Appealing to an objective metric is supposed to do away with that sort of fuzziness. Whether it actually does or not... or whether we actually can appeal to an objective metric, given our cultural prejudices, is a different question.