Why Cultural/Moral Relativism is Bullshit
[under construction***] - a [Dil*] production.
Intro:
First of all, I'll deal with the definitions. I find, half of all the arguments I have with people end up being merely disputes about semantics (differing definitions of a word).
"
Moral Relativism - viewpoint that what is morally right or wrong depends on what someone thinks. Moral Relativism usually comes in two categories:
A)
Subjectivism: What is morally right or wrong for you depends on what you think is morally right or wrong, i.e., right or wrong is relative to the individual. The 'moral facts' may alter from person to person.
B)
Conventionalism/Cultural Relativism: What is morally right or wrong depends on what the society we are dealing with thinks, i.e., morality depends on the conventions of the society we are concerned with. The 'moral facts' may alter from society to society."
Definitions taken from:
http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html
Mine:
C)
Moral Subjectivist - Viewpoint that what is right or wrong depends on individual value systems, which are essentially preferences, but not the same as opinion (aka what one
thinks is correct).
(for more info on my morality:
morality: my take)
MR - Moral Relativism
CR - Cultural Relativism (or society's morals)
MS - Moral Subjectivist
Okay, this page is mostly about CR being bullshit, but I'll deal with why MR is no good either (which is slightly more complex). I'm a moral subjectivist, some people may think that's the same as a MR or CR, but they are different, the difference between MS and CR are very obvious, but the difference between MS and MR are much more subtle. Many people do no justice to MS by putting that into the same group as CR or MR. A)Subjectivism is actually really, really close to MS, but not quite the same. I prefer to wash my hands clean of this MR business (terminology) because MR is tainted with CR.
Morality of Causality
I'm both a moral realist and a moral subjectivist, some people think that's contradictory, but it's not. It depends on how one approaches the problem of morality.
YES I believe there is such thing as absolute RIGHT and WRONG. (But *only* in a certain context)
But it's all about context. I won't pretend this is a simple issue. From the viewpoint of morality built on values, morality is subjective. Values (individual preferences) are personal and obviously arbitrary.
From the viewpoint of morality as measured in effectiveness of fulfilling value systems, there can be objectivity, it can be judged as 'right' (effective at fulfilling a given value) or 'wrong' if it does not fulfill the given value system. From this viewpoint, morality would be simply a set of rules to fulfill a certain value system.
People are quite often wrong about their own morality. Someone may do something that they think will make them happy, but it doesn't, therefore, that action is wrong from the ineffectivenes
s of fulfilling their value (which was to make themselves feel happy). A fundamentalist Christian may think that imposing God's law upon America will make it a utopia, because he/she values the general happiness of the populace, but he/she is flat out WRONG. Having a fundamentalist attempt to impose insane rules on everyone will NOT increase the general happiness of the populace because fundamentalists are insane. And this is how a moral subjectivist can make absolute claims about morality.
If that same fundamentalist had the value of making everyone suffer by attempting to impose God's law upon everyone, then I can't say they're wrong. Of course, that is also insane and nobody sane wants that.
[ to be continued]
Debunking Cultural Relativism
"The Cultural Differences Argument
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. If different societies have different moral codes, then CR is an acceptable normative theory.
3. Therefore, CR is an acceptable normative theory. [1,2 MP]
The Reformer's Dilemma:
1. If CR is an acceptable normative theory, then every moral reformer is mistaken.
2. It's not the case that every moral reformer is mistaken.
3. Therefore, it's not the case that CR is an acceptable normative theory. [1,2 MT]"
CR states that if one lives in a certain culture/society (with it's own set of rules) what is right is simply what the 'general consensus among the people at that particular time/area is'. But if one were to just 'accept' CR as a normative moral theory, we would deny the evolution of morality itself. Every convention today is a result of a controversy yesterday, the majority maybe very well wrong about their own morality (made from the viewpoint of effectiveness of fulfilling individual values), and 'moral reformers' make an appeal to the public about 'what is wrong/right', and if the 'public/society/culture's people' see that their own morality is wrong, by making an appeal to their values, then morality changes. One should not accept CR for the sake of CR, but only accept it if it happens to have the same values as that person. At a time when the 'moral reformer' is forming their own 'individualistic' ideas about what is right vs. wrong, the culture in which they live in can be wrong. Judging morality from causality, people can just be flat-out wrong about their own values.
So the majority in an area do not necessarily determine what is right/wrong. Moral relativism only tells us the sum of 'ideas about morality' in a certain area, it tells us 'what is' as opposed to 'what ought to be', we can't accept moral relativism as 'what ought to be'. To accept CR would be to deny the evolution of morality itself, which is absurd.
Moral relativism is collectivist. To accept it would be like saying: since all these people here think this is okay, it must be okay. In contrast to MR, MS is fiercely individualistic and does not suffer from this fallacy.
Debunking Moral Relativism (Broad Defn)
Morality isn't based on merely opinion or what we think is right vs. wrong. Morality is based on preference, not necessarily opinion.
One may hold the opinion that they prefer something, but when they actually go to try something, they don't. If opinion was the same as preference, every time we'd go out to a movie expecting to like it we would, this is not the case, therefore actual preference and perceived preference (opinion) would differ. Then again, opinion could create preference, but opinion can be wrong, while preference cannot be wrong.
On Values
What are values? Essentially preferences, we think killing is wrong, as a preference, we value the lives of others. Some people think killing others is perfectly fine, they do not value the lives of others. This differing standard of morality is not good enough to concede that there is no objective morality, as people can have differing ideas about something, but there could still be a right answer, but I argue that there is no set standard of morality. There is no one 'set of values' to hold universally, so therefore I think values are subjective. If values are subjective, and morals are based on values, then morality must be subjective. I'm a moral subjectivist, not to be confused with moral relativist (which is flawed and too collectivist in my eyes). Morality does not exist independent of thought, nor is it above personal influence. To say an objective morality exists would be akin to saying that one had found the meaning of life. Morality is a prescriptive statement telling us how to behave in reality as opposed to what is in reality. The meaning of life deals with how one should live their own life, and nobody has the answer because there is no answer. How one should behave in reality is a very similar question.
2007 January dilandau's philosophy
Stumble!