Ethical Relativism

[ana3]

Hmmm You guys confusing me? Is this about value Relativismus. Which means that our Values are based on Culture. Is ist about Ethik relativismus which I thought to mean that different thinking Leads to different conclusions. Or about Morales, that Depend on Dogmas based on believe?

 

Do you differ bewegen ethics and Morals in english?

Edited February 13, 2013 by ana3

[RWyvern]

Hmmm You guns confusing me? Is this about value Relativismus. Which means that our Values are based on Culture. Is ist about Ethik relativismus which I thought to mean that different thinking Ledas to different conclusions. Or about Morales, that Depend on Dogmas based on believe?

 

Do you differ bewegen ethisch and Morals in english?

Wutwut?

 

There are some things that are downright wrong, such as murder, rape, neglecting of those who can't find for themselves and the like. There is no real reason for those actions, the only 'reason' being out of spite, hatred or just plain being wrong in the head and/or finding it fun.

 

In a lot of other situations, however, each side may have a valid reason for their actions. In that case, right and wrong has no business being brought into the fight.

 

Onoz this makes no sense. I really shouldn't be in the middle of a debate at this time

[ana3]

Ethic Relativism is the theory that there is never an objective Right or Wrong. It is the belief that no situation or moral decision is ever objectively 'right' or 'wrong' because depending on who you ask, you always gt a different answer. Likewise, beliefs differ across cultures. What is perceived as wrong for one person may be just fine to another, so there is no real moral code that all humans should follow, just what we believe personally.

 

So, do you think this is about right? Or do you think that a universal morality can be applied to all human beings?

Well if the OP says Depending on whom you ASK, I think it should be considered that the One commiting a Crime obviously didnt think it to be Bad enaugh Not to do it.

 

As I Said in my First Post religions tend to Aply Dogmas as absolutes. Philosophy However Starts by asking questions so there no absolutes. Catholics say that adultery is Bad, However there are People that think you Need the seemed of more than One man to get pregnant. For them adultery is Not only good(or not existent) but necesarry.

[ana3]

I suppose I could cite that one tribe where they believe sperm is not produced by the body and needs to be physically passed on from elders to the next generation. While most of us are pretty sure that's not the case, the young boys who go and... harvest... the stuff from the elders certainly seem enthusiastic. And to stop them would be a great moral wrongdoing in their eyes.

Do they exist or did you make that up to Argue a Point?

 

I once read about People that dont have a Concept of Male and female, the Concept you mentioned Sounds Kind of similar so Iam curiouse.

[Fuzzbucket]

Wutwut?

 

There are some things that are downright wrong, such as murder, rape, neglecting of those who can't find for themselves and the like. There is no real reason for those actions, the only 'reason' being out of spite, hatred or just plain being wrong in the head and/or finding it fun.

 

In a lot of other situations, however, each side may have a valid reason for their actions. In that case, right and wrong has no business being brought into the fight.

 

Onoz this makes no sense. I really shouldn't be in the middle of a debate at this time

That's the point - in Ethical Relativism there are no absolutes. And in subjective realism those "absolutes" are personal, NOT general.

 

No-one is saying whether or not Ethical Relativism is where they want to be - just how does it work and does it exist ?

 

Those planets didn't have to make a choice. We only do because we have set up a value system.

[philpot123]

I'm an absolutist. Social constructs are meaningless, there's an objective standard of right and wrong.

[TikindiDragon]

It's just taken me 4 hours to go roughly 50 miles, so this isn't going to be terribly coherant or much related to anyone elses posts.

 

But.

 

No I do not subscribe to ethical relativism. Ethical relativism rests, broadly, on the presumption that if you can justify something, and you personally don't believe it to be wrong, then it isn't wrong. As far as I am concerned no justification makes something that is intrinsically wrong 'right'. There are shades of grey in the world, and in some instances there are mitigating factors, but there are a handful of things that I consider to be moral absolutes regardless of culture or religion.

 

Edit to add: oh, look, Phil and I agree on something. Makes a nice change, bro.

Edited February 13, 2013 by TikindiDragon

[Fuzzbucket]

It's just taken me 4 hours to go roughly 50 miles, so this isn't going to be terribly coherant or much related to anyone elses posts.

 

But.

 

No I do not subscribe to ethical relativism. Ethical relativism rests, broadly, on the presumption that if you can justify something, and you personally don't believe it to be wrong, then it isn't wrong. As far as I am concerned no justification makes something that is intrinsically wrong 'right'. There are shades of grey in the world, and in some instances there are mitigating factors, but there are a handful of things that I consider to be moral absolutes regardless of culture or religion.

 

Edit to add: oh, look, Phil and I agree on something. Makes a nice change, bro.

But no, it doesn't mean that. You don't have to justify anything - because there is no such THING as right or wrong, in Absolute Ethical Relativism. In SUBJECTIVE Ethical relativism - yes - that's what you are describing there, I think.

 

Subjective ethical relativism supports the view that the truth of moral principles is relative to individuals. Whatever you believe is right for you personally is completely up to you to determine. Subjective relativism allows you to be sovereign over the principles that dictate how you live your life.

 

I find that far and away the most dangerous.

 

(Source - one of those sites I linked before.)

[AngelKitty]

Those planets didn't have to make a choice. We only do because we have set up a value system.

No, planets cannot make choices. They have no brains. They cannot make decisions. You cannot compare them to humans, it's silly. Humans are a social species with complex brains and the capacity for empathy and, therefore, to realize that hurting others without good reason is wrong.

[Fuzzbucket]

No, planets cannot make choices. They have no brains. They cannot make decisions. You cannot compare them to humans, it's silly. Humans are a social species with complex brains and the capacity for empathy and, therefore, to realize that hurting others without good reason is wrong.

And who used those brains to construct the concepts of good and evil which are what makes us think things are right or wrong. That is my whole POINT. In absolute Ethical Relativism, the planets have it right. They just act, with no thought of any kind.

 

And anyway - whose reason prevails ? I may have what I think is a good reason for hurting someone which you may disagree with, and you may never understand why I had to do it; may not even know the full facts - and so on.

Edited February 13, 2013 by fuzzbucket

[AngelKitty]

And who used those brains to construct the concepts of good and evil which are what makes us think things are right or wrong. That is my whole POINT. In absolute Ethical Relativism, the planets have it right. They just act, with no thought of any kind.

How can the planets have it right when there's no right and wrong? :U

 

And anyway - whose reason prevails ? I may have what I think is a good reason for hurting someone which you may disagree with, and you may never understand why I had to do it; may not even know the full facts - and so on.

 

The collective human reasoning determines what's right and wrong. Most people agree it's justifiable to kill someone who's trying to harm you or your family. Most people agree it's not justifiable to kill someone because you want their stuff. There are grey areas - as in cases of adultery, where harm has been done to you but it's not necessarily physical, where some may say it's alright to kill and others may say it's not - but there are certain things that humanity as a whole agree are right and wrong.

Edited February 13, 2013 by AngelKitty

[Fuzzbucket]

How can the planets have it right when there's no right and wrong? :U

 

 

 

The collective human reasoning determines what's right and wrong. Most people agree it's justifiable to kill someone who's trying to harm you or your family. Most people agree it's not justifiable to kill someone because you want their stuff. There are grey areas - as in cases of adultery, where harm has been done to you but it's not necessarily physical - but there are certain things that humanity as a whole agree are right and wrong.

The planets do not think. They just do. If one of them kills a load of people, it is WE who think it is a bad thing. WE decided there was something bad - unpleasant, sad - about it.

 

That is exactly what I am saying . Collective human reasoning is what we, collectively, have put together to say that there is such a thing as good, right, wrong, evil. Before we humans decided that - there wasn't - there was just the total impassiveness of the planets and other impartial things.

 

ETA I take your point about use of English; I should have said that the planets are "correct" maybe, rather than "right" !!! :

Edited February 13, 2013 by fuzzbucket

[AngelKitty]

I take your point about use of English; I should have said that the planets are "correct" maybe, rather than "right" !!! :

But how can you say not caring and feeling is the "correct" way to be? Would our world be better if we all just did whatever we wanted?

[TikindiDragon]

@ fuzz - owing to our higher brain functions humans are actually incapable of acting in the way you describe as being absolute ethical relativism. It's boradly considered to be one of the defining points of the human mind that we *do* have the capacity to think rather than blindly act.

 

...

 

I've tried to respond further three times know. And even I can see that what I'm typing isn't making any sense. So I'll just leave this bit here for now - and say that regardless of wether you are talking absolute or subjective ethical relitivism I do not believe in it.

[Fuzzbucket]

But how can you say not caring and feeling is the "correct" way to be? Would our world be better if we all just did whatever we wanted?

Tik - I do know what you are saying. But this is discussing something TOTALLY abstract. And yes, it is (on the whole) impossible for humans to act that way - but that is something that has developed because we made it so.

 

Which is also my response to you, AngelKitty. I didn't mean the planets would be acting in a thinking way, just that in terms of Ethical Relativism they are spot on (how's that !) in that they are not thinking at all (yes, I know they can't !) - just acting. I didn't say it was better that way; just that in terms of the subject of this thread as asked by the OP, the planets are the only things cited so far that are actually practising absolute Ethical Relativism.

 

Sure - we humans invented ethics to make life more pleasant for us all; now we have the issue that we all have different views of what's right and wrong, and many cultures see things differently too - but the original question was:

 

Do you believe in Ethical Relativism?

 

For those of you who are not familiar with this theory:

 

Ethical Relativism is the theory that there is never an objective Right or Wrong. It is the belief that no situation or moral decision is ever objectively 'right' or 'wrong' because depending on who you ask, you always gt a different answer. Likewise, beliefs differ across cultures. What is perceived as wrong for one person may be just fine to another, so there is no real moral code that all humans should follow, just what we believe personally.

 

So, do you think this is about right? Or do you think that a universal morality can be applied to all human beings?

 

to which my answer - which has little to do with what I think would be a good idea - remains:

I believe in it as theory, given that right and wrong are human constructs, but I refuse to believe in it in practice, as that way lies hell.

 

Though rereading the initial post, what is described there is Subjective Ethical Relativism anyway. And while it exists in practice - there are loads of people who say whatever they like to justify whatever they do (politicians and bankers spring to mind) I hate that worse than anything !

[TheDarkCynder]

Yes, I do support the idea of Ethical Relativism.

 

Note- Ethical Relativism doesn't mean that society cannot ban things, such as murder and rape, since it is generally accepted as a whole, but "good" and "bad" has no concrete definition. (UNLESS you are saying "good" means accepted by society as a whole and bad means the opposite, though this is not necessarily the case.)

[Alpha1]

Hmmm You guys confusing me? Is this about value Relativismus. Which means that our Values are based on Culture. Is ist about Ethik relativismus which I thought to mean that different thinking Leads to different conclusions. Or about Morales, that Depend on Dogmas based on believe?

 

Do you differ bewegen ethics and Morals in english?

 

I can see why you're confuzzled. Morality and ethics can be used interchangeably. There is a difference, too, depending on how they're used.

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/

 

"Defining moral relativism is difficult because different writers use the term in slightly different ways; in particular, friends and foes of relativism often diverge considerably in their characterization of it. Therefore, it is important to first distinguish between some of the positions that have been identified or closely associated with moral relativism before setting out a definition that captures the main idea its adherents seek to put forward."

 

And anyway - whose reason prevails ? I may have what I think is a good reason for hurting someone which you may disagree with, and you may never understand why I had to do it; may not even know the full facts - and so on.

 

[Kestra15]

Do you believe in Ethical Relativism?

Yes. I am a firm believer that morality is mostly relative, that there are situations which can test someone's 'absolute' morality to the point that they will bend and break their self-imposed rules.

[Fuzzbucket]

Yes, I do support the idea of Ethical Relativism.

 

Note- Ethical Relativism doesn't mean that society cannot ban things, such as murder and rape, since it is generally accepted as a whole, but "good" and "bad" has no concrete definition. (UNLESS you are saying "good" means accepted by society as a whole and bad means the opposite, though this is not necessarily the case.)

That's IT - thanks

[The Evil Doer]

As long as I gain more than I lose (subjectively) there are no ethical boundaries I wouldnt cross, and the same rule applies to every thinking human.... universal rule about morals right there

[esnym]

I think the one problem with using phrases like "generally accepted" is the fact that what is generally accepted is not always the right thing to do. Frequently, those we know to have done the right thing are actually in the minority.

 

My issue is the problem of Voice. Say there's a village where raping young girls is a 'custom,' something they've been doing for thousands of years and it allegedly helps their society function. A concerned citizen from another area asks them to stop the harmful practice. The voice answers "butt out, you don't understand our culture."

 

The voice that answers is not likely to be the oppressed. Many voices make up a culture - how do we decide who to listen to? And even if there is only one girl that disagrees with what is being done, do we disregard her input because she is in the minority?

 

Now, w might agree that there is no magical right and wrong floating around in the universe somewhere. But how should we base our lawmaking? As something widely accepted? It was once widely accepted that women are inferior to men and can't vote.

 

Now, ethical relativism isn't saying "we shouldn't have laws because people disagree." But if people disagree, then how do we reach the Truth?

[willmac81]

it is a good question...and ive often wonderd about it...and in my view its about the eye of the beholder...if someone grew up there whole lives believing something and then someone just comes along and tells em that what they've lived there whole lives believing is wrong....the person is gonna backlash or ignore it an example is north korea

[philpot123]

Note- Ethical Relativism doesn't mean that society cannot ban things, such as murder and rape, since it is generally accepted as a whole, but "good" and "bad" has no concrete definition. (UNLESS you are saying "good" means accepted by society as a whole and bad means the opposite, though this is not necessarily the case.)

No, but it does mean they have no objective reason to make something illegal beyond personal feelings, the will of the masses, or pure pragmatism.

[Alpha1]

Yes, I do support the idea of Ethical Relativism.

 

Note- Ethical Relativism doesn't mean that society cannot ban things, such as murder and rape, since it is generally accepted as a whole, but "good" and "bad" has no concrete definition.

 

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decis...relativism.html

 

"Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a society's practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies.

 

Most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism."

 

(UNLESS you are saying "good" means accepted by society as a whole and bad means the opposite, though this is not necessarily the case.)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

 

Maximize happiness, minimize suffering

 

This is for consequentialists to figure out.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

[TikindiDragon]

As long as I gain more than I lose (subjectively) there are no ethical boundaries I wouldnt cross, and the same rule applies to every thinking human.... universal rule about morals right there

No, that rule does not apply to every thinking human. There are plenty of things I would not do, even if I stood to gain from them without any realistic potential of loss. Why? Because they would be wrong.

 

Yes. I am a firm believer that morality is mostly relative, that there are situations which can test someone's 'absolute' morality to the point that they will bend and break their self-imposed rules.

 

I would argue that the bending and breaking of even self-imposed rules still does not make doing so any less wrong. It may be human nature to find ways to justify their actions to soothe their own conscience, but as far as I am concerned those justifications have no bearing on the implicit rightness or wrongness of an action.

 

The example of a man stealing bread to feed his starving family, for example. It may be something he needs to do in order to survive (killing in self-defence is another example) but that justification doesn't magically make his actions moral or ethical. It's where the term 'necesary evil' comes from. There are situations where no choice available could be considered to be a 'good' one.