Moral Relativism and the case for theism

[OnlyAmbrose]

Hey guys. More of Ambrose's philosophical musings. As always, I expect rigorous rebuttal!

Ok, so I was thinking about morality and the case for theism. My basic premise is that atheists must be moral relativists, because an atheist can't believe in a fundamental and intangible moral code, because such a thing implies a universal and intangible moral code-maker. That said...

I have two observations about this. The first, most common, and most relevant, I think, is that the statement that there are no moral absolutes is an absolute. I'd ask the atheist where this revelation came from. Seems to me that taking the moral high ground, as it were, and declaring that there are no moral absolutes is in itself a moral absolute. The atheist is, himself, declaring a certain and rather absolute view about morality: that it is not absolute. The argument seems to crumble upon itself from the start.

Second, in asking an atheist where morality comes from, most will say "the culture or society that you are in." By this argument, of course, slavery was acceptable in the South in the 1800s. It was, in effect, moral. It is not NOW of course, but it was at the time.

To this I would ask what right abolitionists had to change society in the south. If their morals are inherently no better or worse than those of southern slaveowners, who are THEY to say that slavery is wrong?

What I'm basically getting at is that any atheists who aims for social change is, in fact, a hypocrite, because if morality comes from society, then who is an individual to say what should or should not be legal in said society? I think the founding fathers, and virtually every social revolutionary in recorded history, has known this. Does it not say in the Declaration that men are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights? There, Jefferson is citing a higher power as justification for his belief in human rights. How else can you believe in something so cosmic as "human rights"? One society may think it's ok to kill indiscriminately, but we would all consider them wrong. Would be be wrong to change that society? If there is no universal moral truth, as an atheist must posit, I would say yes.

Alright, have at me!

[got tonkaed]

I think although the conclusions you come to are easy to follow, i dont think it necessarily makes them true.

It seems that everyone needs to in some capacity have a moral code of some sorts. The absolute moral code derived from a higher power is certainly one way to go about this, but it would seem incomplete in itself. The person has to still has to piecemeal bits and pieces of the code, because there isnt a handbook that gives you the complete moral code, since human behavior seems to be subject to variables and variation.

When you opt out of the theist absolutist approach, in many ways you simply add to the list of things the person has to do in creating their moral code. Whereas in some systems, the person simply has to interact with the moral code, adding or subtracting things, there is more of an imperative on the person in the case of no theist to derive the framework from. While you perhaps trade certainty (in as far as it can be derived as a believer of a system as such) you gain the opportunity to take that adding and subtracting to a level that probably cant be attained by the other group.

Now as to your points....

It clearly is a bit of a pitfall to claim there are no moral absolutes. Perhaps it is a more well developed thinker who notices this and says, in as far as i can tell there are not moral absolutes or i do not believe there are moral absolutes in a more weak sense. However as this tends to a more agnostic approach. I think obviously in the same way that you cant prove their isnt a god you cant prove there are no moral absolutes. I think the arguments for both should be put on the same level, and should probably be seen as taken...though weak points.

In short the individual as a member of the society should if they choose to attempt to state how they wish for the society to take shape. It would seem that best of societies are ones that can collaborate on this level. Obviously the relativist gives up something of certainty in their stances by the nature of their position. But to claim that just because societies did things wrong in the past means that we cant say how we feel society could be better, is something akin to claiming that members of a group who did something in the past are no different that the people who share the same groupings today, but not the same beliefs on certain social positions.

As always, these are arguments that can be made, but both are sort of weak in my opinion.

[Neoteny]

Let it be known that I disagree! But I am too drunk to offer a valid argument, so I will leave it to others until later.

[InkL0sed]

Alright, I respect you Ambrose; I'll tell you what I think.

Hey guys. More of Ambrose's philosophical musings. As always, I expect rigorous rebuttal!

Ok, so I was thinking about morality and the case for theism. My basic premise is that atheists must be moral relativists, because an atheist can't believe in a fundamental and intangible moral code, because such a thing implies a universal and intangible moral code-maker. That said...

I disagree. Atheists need not be moral relativists. I'll get to why later, because it's connected.

I have two observations about this. The first, most common, and most relevant, I think, is that the statement that there are no moral absolutes is an absolute. I'd ask the atheist where this revelation came from. Seems to me that taking the moral high ground, as it were, and declaring that there are no moral absolutes is in itself a moral absolute. The atheist is, himself, declaring a certain and rather absolute view about morality: that it is not absolute. The argument seems to crumble upon itself from the start.

I don't think this logic follows very much. It's really just semantics. If you say, for example, "there is just one rule: there are no rules," this as it is is contradictory. However, if you adjusted it to say "There is just one rule: the only rule is this one," then you are no longer contradicting yourself. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Instead of saying there are no absolutes with morality, a moral relativist might instead say that the only absolutes with morality is that there are none. Kind of like that saying "the exception proves the rule." But, like I said, this is just semantics, and is more of an issue of language than one of philosophy.

Second, in asking an atheist where morality comes from, most will say "the culture or society that you are in." By this argument, of course, slavery was acceptable in the South in the 1800s. It was, in effect, moral. It is not NOW of course, but it was at the time.

To this I would ask what right abolitionists had to change society in the south. If their morals are inherently no better or worse than those of southern slaveowners, who are THEY to say that slavery is wrong?

I would argue that morality itself is a result of evolution. We are social creatures; we depend on others, a community of some sort, in order to survive. Naturally, members of a community must trust each other in order for it to succeed, and thus the need for some sense of morality. But this sense is malleable and not absolute, and thus why such things like slavery can become institutionalized.

As to what makes the abolitionists' morals superior than those of the slave-owners, well it would be the fact that they took into account the well-being of the entire country, not just that of the white, male, Anglo-Saxon race.

What I'm basically getting at is that any atheists who aims for social change is, in fact, a hypocrite, because if morality comes from society, then who is an individual to say what should or should not be legal in said society? I think the founding fathers, and virtually every social revolutionary in recorded history, has known this. Does it not say in the Declaration that men are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights? There, Jefferson is citing a higher power as justification for his belief in human rights. How else can you believe in something so cosmic as "human rights"? One society may think it's ok to kill indiscriminately, but we would all consider them wrong. Would be be wrong to change that society? If there is no universal moral truth, as an atheist must posit, I would say yes.

Alright, have at me!

Well, I believe in human rights, but I wouldn't agree with your usage of "cosmic." They are, in fact, quite earthly. We are, after all, speaking of humans here.

I believe in human rights because it makes sense. I believe in human rights because I don't believe I am naturally any better than anyone else, because if I don't think they apply to others, there is nothing stopping their not being applied to myself. The success of the self is intertwined on the success of the community. Which is probably why, I think, that most people don't feel particularly compelled to intervene when some atrocity occurs on another continent. Their community is not endangered by such events. This is why I think globalization is a pretty great think, by the way -- we are, more and more, becoming a global community; eventually, universal human rights will be necessary for all of us.

PS. Oh yeah, in case it isn't clear why I don't think atheists need be moral relativists (though I'd guess most are), is because they may think that some things (like murder, rape, etc) cannot ever be moral, because they threaten society/community, and thus the self.

[Evil Pope]

I think the individual perceives right and wrong own their own, though with unavoidable influence from outside sources like religion. But when you think about it, no one really has the right determine it. But it's there and it is more or less just what the masses deem acceptable. Yet If someone strives for social change they aren't necessarilly hypocritical, even if they believe that the basis of morality is derived from society. They want to mold society in their perceived set of moral rights and wrongs. And society will conform if the general populous agrees (or is forced to accept it as is generally the case with the abolition of slavery). So, in the first case, it is society determining morality.

I'll add that I believe the attempt to force socially determined moral rights on another society is nothing more than a power struggle for social dominance or an attempt to show social or cultural dominance. And in theory, that is wrong. But at the same time, in practice people do feel very strongly about human rights and thus fight for them sincerely. I believe in them and i'm sure you do as well... And to a degree, its almost impossible, if not entirely impossible, to avoid such idealistic clashes. We'll all do what we see is best, and thats all we can do... Whoever wins will maintain that they are right. Thats just how it works.
And as I was going to say, but InkLOsed got there first, the whole no absolute is an absolute thing is just the manipulation of words, it has no real validity.
Did I make any sense at all, or was that just stupid?

[Zaqq]

First off, many Atheists do not beleive that there are no such things as morals. You know this is true as much as I, and so do they. This does not mean you have a basesless answer, though. Certainly, it could be argued that evolution allowed only the creatures with basesless moral codes that would benefit the entirety of the species survive, as having said baseless morals which began as anomalies in genetic coding would give this new species a definite advantage over others. But that is to the best of my knowledge a shaky arguement.

Rather, the better arguement (i personally beleive) is to say that you are right about there being no reasonable basis for morality from any source as a single right way to live. HOWEVER, as you said, society dictates morals to an effect and so does that which I touched on earlier: morals in place for the good of our species. IF evolution is correct as most atheists beleive, than the meaning of life is really to make sure your kids survive where others' wont, and having a mass social code is much more effective at ensuring the safety of not only our progeny but also ourselves.

There, Ive had at you!!!!

[OnlyAmbrose]

Emphasis mine:

In short the individual as a member of the society should if they choose to attempt to state how they wish for the society to take shape. It would seem that best of societies are ones that can collaborate on this level. Obviously the relativist gives up something of certainty in their stances by the nature of their position. But to claim that just because societies did things wrong in the past means that we cant say how we feel society could be better, is something akin to claiming that members of a group who did something in the past are no different that the people who share the same groupings today, but not the same beliefs on certain social positions.

According to an atheist, however, what a member of society "should" do or what defines the "best" of society or what is "wrong" in the past or how society can be "better" is completely relative. A person today could feel that slavery was a-ok. What makes your opinion better than theirs? That said, how, as an atheist, can you hold that any social change can be enacted if what is "good" for society is completely relative?

I don't think this logic follows very much. It's really just semantics. If you say, for example, "there is just one rule: there are no rules," this as it is is contradictory. However, if you adjusted it to say "There is just one rule: the only rule is this one," then you are no longer contradicting yourself. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Instead of saying there are no absolutes with morality, a moral relativist might instead say that the only absolutes with morality is that there are none. Kind of like that saying "the exception proves the rule." But, like I said, this is just semantics, and is more of an issue of language than one of philosophy.

Alright, so let's say you mixed the words around and got this: "The one moral absolute is that there are no other moral absolutes." That still establishes that there is at least one moral absolute, which once again seems to imply an absolute-giver, if you will.

As to what makes the abolitionists' morals superior than those of the slave-owners, well it would be the fact that they took into account the well-being of the entire country, not just that of the white, male, Anglo-Saxon race.

Who are you to say what kind of morality is better than any other? Any use of words such as "better" or "superior", etc, automatically imply moral judgment and, and moral judgment is supposed to be relative, no?

PS. Oh yeah, in case it isn't clear why I don't think atheists need be moral relativists (though I'd guess most are), is because they may think that some things (like murder, rape, etc) cannot ever be moral, because they threaten society/community, and thus the self.

But there you go defining "whatever threatens the self" as immoral. Who are you to judge that?

First off, many Atheists do not beleive that there are no such things as morals.

I can't recall ever saying that.

[Neoteny]

I suppose I'll give it a try now. The key distinction from my perspective on my morality is the relationship between morality and human rights. Morality is more a social construct, human rights are inherent in our humanity. In this respect, I might argue that the one absolute is that our humanity entails careful thought as to how we treat ourselves and others. This is admittedly a rather vague absolute, and doesn't really fit well with "thou shalt not kill" and whatnot. Our moral goal, or at least mine, would be to discern the best possible course of action within a given context so as to act in a moral manner. The morality is sociologically derived, the discernment is relative, and the goal or best action is the absolute. This is not to say that we have or will achieve this, but it is rather noble to try.

I don't suppose I have an issue with a moral absolute, though I think most people will be remiss to come up with one that would meet every context that could be thought up. But if there is one, I definitely do not think that it must be derived from some other personality (for lack of a better descriptor). It just does not follow. I could go into this, but then we get back into the domain we've covered in myriad other threads (something from nothing?). My current opinion might be: just as human rights are inherent in our humanity, perhaps such an absolute (striving toward perfection), is also inherent in our humanity, which, of course, makes it no less noble.

I do think we've progressed a long way, but I do think that achieving an absolute moral code is a bit of a naive thought, because it cannot be flexible enough to be suitable every complex situation we might encounter. Thus current trends in human interaction can be modified without me being a complete hypocrite.

In other words, it might exist conceptually, but I don't see a moral absolute ever being realized.

Which camp would you lump me in with: the absolutists or the relativists? Perhaps the barely coherent (arguably) babblers?

[MeDeFe]

Claiming that there are no moral absolutes is actually not an absolute. The truth or falsity of the statement depends on the state of the world and is therefor not really absolutus, meaning approximately "detached from". Just to warn you: I had this discussion with daddy1gringo already, he suddenly stopped replying when it got interesting.

[Snorri1234]

Claiming that there are no moral absolutes is actually not an absolute. The truth or falsity of the statement depends on the state of the world and is therefor not really absolutus, meaning approximately "detached from". Just to warn you: I had this discussion with daddy1gringo already, he suddenly stopped replying when it got interesting.

Never thought of it that way actually. Way better argument.

[InkL0sed]

I don't think this logic follows very much. It's really just semantics. If you say, for example, "there is just one rule: there are no rules," this as it is is contradictory. However, if you adjusted it to say "There is just one rule: the only rule is this one," then you are no longer contradicting yourself. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Instead of saying there are no absolutes with morality, a moral relativist might instead say that the only absolutes with morality is that there are none. Kind of like that saying "the exception proves the rule." But, like I said, this is just semantics, and is more of an issue of language than one of philosophy.

Alright, so let's say you mixed the words around and got this: "The one moral absolute is that there are no other moral absolutes." That still establishes that there is at least one moral absolute, which once again seems to imply an absolute-giver, if you will.

I don't see why having one moral absolute means there must be a giver of such an absolute, no more than the absolute-ness of certain laws of physics implies that there must be someone who made such laws.

As to what makes the abolitionists' morals superior than those of the slave-owners, well it would be the fact that they took into account the well-being of the entire country, not just that of the white, male, Anglo-Saxon race.

Who are you to say what kind of morality is better than any other? Any use of words such as "better" or "superior", etc, automatically imply moral judgment and, and moral judgment is supposed to be relative, no?

I said "better" because it was more beneficial for humanity as a whole. I'm a cosmopolitan (in the philosophical sense), so I believe a sense of morality that takes into account all of humanity is indeed superior.

Morality can be judged by how beneficial it is for a community or society. For me, that community/society is the world. So yes, on those grounds I can judge them.

[OnlyAmbrose]

human rights are inherent in our humanity.

Why? How?

the goal or best action is the absolute. This is not to say that we have or will achieve this, but it is rather noble to try.

Here you go, though, using those moral judgement words. "best" and "noble." We still haven't established where these "human rights" come from.

I do think we've progressed a long way

According to your moral perspective. But here you are applying direction to morality, implying that you do thing that there is a "good" and "bad" direction. Who or what determines good and bad?

Claiming that there are no moral absolutes is actually not an absolute. The truth or falsity of the statement depends on the state of the world and is therefor not really absolutus, meaning approximately "detached from"

Could you explain that a bit better?

I don't see why having one moral absolute means there must be a giver of such an absolute, no more than the absolute-ness of certain laws of physics implies that there must be someone who made such laws.

The laws of physics are cold, hard laws that are scientifically testable and observable. The laws of morality, if there are any, certainly are not. Much like a nation's laws. Moral laws have law-makers, judges if you will.

I said "better" because it was more beneficial for humanity as a whole. I'm a cosmopolitan (in the philosophical sense), so I believe a sense of morality that takes into account all of humanity is indeed superior.

Morality can be judged by how beneficial it is for a community or society. For me, that community/society is the world. So yes, on those grounds I can judge them.

There's a lot of "I believes" in there. So YOUR view of morality is that whatever benefits society is good. Well, I have two issues with that:

1) Why?
2) Define "beneficial."

People are not going to agree what is beneficial, so who are you to say what's beneficial, if your view is not inherently any greater than their view. Deeper than that, if your view IS inherently greater than your view, how did you happen to come across such a revelation and the rest of the world didn't?

I think the problem is that you don't have a fundamental premise. Or maybe you do, but you have even more faith than I do as a theist in assigning your fundamental premise.

[got tonkaed]

taking MeDeFe's assertion as probably sufficient for the moral absolute issue, i think a fair amount of observable truth can be found in the issue of doing what is best without an absolute. The fact of the matter is we see a lot of different ideas posed in politics, social justice movements and policy about how to solve certain issues. These people arent making their choices because they believe them to be wrong, they are attempting to make these changes because they believe them to be better. You certainly do not need a moral absolute to try to enact change, you simply only need to feel strongly enough about your convictions, in the fashion that youve derived them to believe them to be important enough to work for.

As relativists, you can judge the modern slaveholder in comparison to the society that they come out of. While it may lack the force that someone who uses an absolutist system, it still can be held as wrong for someone in a modern society to want to have slaves, considering personal freedom is a value that is held highly in these societies.

[Snorri1234]

The laws of physics are cold, hard laws that are scientifically testable and observable. The laws of morality, if there are any, certainly are not. Much like a nation's laws. Moral laws have law-makers, judges if you will.

Quite a lot of philosophers have not used God to form absolute morals, take a look at Kant for example. A moral absolute can be derived by reason or from humanity itself, it does not need an authority that has created it. They are absolute as they apply to humanity as a whole, not absolute in the same way that gravity is an absolute.

PS. Oh yeah, in case it isn't clear why I don't think atheists need be moral relativists (though I'd guess most are), is because they may think that some things (like murder, rape, etc) cannot ever be moral, because they threaten society/community, and thus the self.

But there you go defining "whatever threatens the self" as immoral. Who are you to judge that?

Fine, then don't call it immoral. Doesn't change a thing.

People are not going to agree what is beneficial,

Hah! That's a good one. The very first humans that formed tribes already agreed on what was benificial for the most part. Stealing, Killing and Rape are usually the three first agreed on. Claiming that people don't agree on beneficial shows a rather large gap in your knowledge about humans.
I think that what you tried to say was that not everyone is going to agree with what is benificial. Which might be true, but I'd say most people would still agree with murder being a bad thing for society. In fact, I think it's impossible to find someone who disagrees with it.

[MeDeFe]

Claiming that there are no moral absolutes is actually not an absolute. The truth or falsity of the statement depends on the state of the world and is therefor not really absolutus, meaning approximately "detached from"

Could you explain that a bit better?

Sure thing.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=23798&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=150
Should be the third post from the top, the one mentioning pink elephants.

[suggs]

No, you can be an agnostic or atheist and believe in moral absolutes.
Either on Kantian gorunds, or utilitarian grounds, or emotivist grounds.
Eg, you ca be an atheist and believe in love as a moral absolute, because love promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
Sorry Ambrose, but this means the rest of your post is unnecessary.

Or, you could be a moral relativist, and an atheist, but just believe that pragmatically, loyalty to ones friends (for example) generally is the best way of acting towards ones friends.
You dont need to believe in a ghostly spirit to act morally - and, in fact, most people dont.

[Napoleon Ier]

No, you can be an agnostic or atheist and believe in moral absolutes.
Either on Kantian gorunds, or utilitarian grounds, or emotivist grounds.
Eg, you ca be an atheist and believe in love as a moral absolute, because love promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
Sorry Ambrose, but this means the rest of your post is unnecessary.

Or, you could be a moral relativist, and an atheist, but just believe that pragmatically, loyalty to ones friends (for example) generally is the best way of acting towards ones friends.
You dont need to believe in a ghostly spirit to act morally - and, in fact, most people dont.

Explain. I've never heard a justification for moral absolutism which doesn't incorporate some idea of an objective and extrnal standard in the form of a deity.

[suggs]

Its straightforward. From an emotivist perspective, you can say "I feel that acting in a humanitarian way ( ) towards my fellow man is the right way to behave, ALWAYS.
You may say, "ah, but thats not based on a priori reasoning, just your feelings".
To which i would say: Exactly - i feel that to be true, so it IS TRUE - for me, that is an absolute truth.

[InkL0sed]

Yeah, what suggs said.

[Napoleon Ier]

Its straightforward. From an emotivist perspective, you can say "I feel that acting in a humanitarian way ( ) towards my fellow man is the right way to behave, ALWAYS.
You may say, "ah, but thats not based on a priori reasoning, just your feelings".
To which i would say: Exactly - i feel that to be true, so it IS TRUE - for me, that is an absolute truth.

Yet feelings are subjective. Somust, therefore, be your morals.

[Zaqq]

Explain. I've never heard a justification for moral absolutism which doesn't incorporate some idea of an objective and extrnal standard in the form of a deity.

Well then here is one for you. I dont beleive in God. I think life is better when people ARENT trying to kill me just to get my stuff. Problem solved.

[got tonkaed]

No, you can be an agnostic or atheist and believe in moral absolutes.
Either on Kantian gorunds, or utilitarian grounds, or emotivist grounds.
Eg, you ca be an atheist and believe in love as a moral absolute, because love promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
Sorry Ambrose, but this means the rest of your post is unnecessary.

Or, you could be a moral relativist, and an atheist, but just believe that pragmatically, loyalty to ones friends (for example) generally is the best way of acting towards ones friends.
You dont need to believe in a ghostly spirit to act morally - and, in fact, most people dont.

Explain. I've never heard a justification for moral absolutism which doesn't incorporate some idea of an objective and extrnal standard in the form of a deity.

I didnt follow up on it very much, but i remember reading something from Sam Harris (the guy who doesnt like religion very much) arguing with a Catholic that they could create a better objective moral system than was presented in the bible. Im pretty sure there is a segment of philosophy people who are trying to establish what human behavior can be viewed by objectively.

[jonesthecurl]

Whether one believes in a god or not, the attempt to define for oneself what is right or wrong is an ongoing process. For the religious person, they may feel that this is an attempt to better understand God's (or The Gods') opinion on the subject. To others, it is more simply the attempt to find right action and good standards for judging what is right and what is wrong. Sure things can change, both on a personal and a societal level. This is true for the religious too, or do we still think it's OK to burn witches and heretics? Is lending money at interest (usury) still a sin? Must we all refrain from meat on Friday (and around 25% of the year)? When I was a kid, the school meal on Friday was always fish. Now it's not. A perceived change in moral correctness?

[Napoleon Ier]

No you cretin, the question is a meta-ethical one, not one for your namby-pamby little politically correct whinnying about how "we're all on a search for our own morals that are true for us blah blah blah...."

[InkL0sed]

No you cretin, the question is a meta-ethical one, not one about for your namby-pamby little politically correct whinnying about how "we're all on a search for our own morals that are true for us blah blah blah...."

No, you're a cretin! *sticks out tongue*