Moral Relativism

[Mike]

I thought I'd just include a few definitions of moral relativism here to get us started. They're all more or less the same, but sometimes repetition is useful.


Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It's a version of morality that advocates “to each her own.”

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to a particular standpoint, with no uniquely privileged standpoint.

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of a person or group.


So where do you stand? Are you a moral relativist or a moral absolutist?

[Mike]

No takers??

Do we think morality is objectively right or wrong(as dictated by God perhaps), or do we think morality is subjective(dictated by human beings)?

Anyone?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Mike (here)
So where do you stand? Are you a moral relativist or a moral absolutist?

I hold that morality is absolute. (But I also believe that most humans, even those whom society and history consider to be the most moral and wise, don't have the entire biggest picture of morality quite right yet.)

[Johan (Keyholder)]

It is a fascinating subject Mike.

Personally I would say that I am a "moral relativist". I would not even use the word "judgment", but rather "opinion".

Time (era) and place are very important in this matter. Just one example: take cannibalism. We abhor the idea in our time and Western civilization. But for instance in the Fiji Islands (as well as in many other Pacific Island Countries), a few centuries ago, it was the most normal thing. There were all sorts of rituals about it too. It was mainly when after a war a competing tribe was defeated, consuming the enemies was commonplace. Cannibalism is an unusual subject, but there are many other examples that can be found.

Kohlberg's (six) stages of moral development (there are several threads and posts on this forum about it), is another approach I can find myself in. Not that it is an absolute truth , but it is at least one good way to consider moral development.

Just a short summary here below, as a reminder:


1. Preconventional Level (Childhood)
Focus: Decisions based primarily on self-interest and avoiding punishment.
Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation (avoiding punishment). For example, a child doesn’t take cookies because they fear being scolded by their parent.
Stage 2: Self-Interest Orientation (personal benefit). For example, a child helps clean up toys because they expect a reward afterward.

2. Conventional Level (Adolescence and Adulthood)
Focus: Decisions guided by social expectations, relationships, laws, and societal order.
Stage 3: Interpersonal Accord and Conformity (meeting social expectations). For example, a teenager agrees to volunteer because friends view volunteering positively.
Stage 4: Authority and Maintaining Social Order (obeying laws and maintaining social order). For example, an adult decides not to speed because it’s important to obey traffic laws to maintain safety.

3. Postconventional Level (Advanced Moral Reasoning)
Focus: Decisions guided by higher ethical principles and individual rights beyond societal laws.
Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights (social agreements and prioritizing human life). For example, a citizen participates in a peaceful protest to advocate for human rights, despite potential legal consequences.
Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principles (universal ethical principles – justice, human rights). For example, a whistleblower exposes corruption in their company, recognizing the greater good outweighs personal risk.

Not a whole lot of adults ever reach level 6 in their life. We live in a time where most humans have plenty of opportunities to work their way to level 6.

Another good source (about morality) are a few books by Todd May, like "A significant life", "A decent life" and "A fragile life".

Stoicism also looks like a good way to learn to live ethically (but not the easiest way to go no doubt).

Thanks for bringing this subject up Mike!

[Delight]

IMO we are constantly faced with moral relativism in the very structure of social order. IMO we live in a condition where one will face constant cognitive dissonance if trying to act according to unwavering "moral" principles. You will IMO be asked to become a hypocrite if trying to pretend one's choices are NOT relative to conditions.

And I will tell you here, IF I was placed in a position to defend my beloveds, I woould throw morality out as a reason to choose an action. However, if it is just me, I'd prefer to be killed before killing. That in itself might be morally relative?

One of the areas I think about a lot is how the concept of WAR being a given pollutes all other moral stands. IF it is permissable to murder at all, it is morally relative. From there we have wars on other creatures where it is ok to mass slaughter other living creatures (including plants, trees etc.) It is not possible IMO to NOT live here with moral relativism. IMO we have been set up to be MADE TO BE schizophrenoGENIC (creating psychotic splits).

IMO moral relativism in itself is split inducing. Look a cow in the eye and then murder it for food and then claim MURDER is 100% wrong. Farmers face this issue daily. We tried to sweep it away from our awareness with factory farms where only the pitiable attendents are made to watch the egregious treatment of the kill.

What to do? IMO we are not able to do anything. We should just aspire to get energy direct from SOURCE. Face it, we cannot be trurthful about our pathetic civilization where we are forced to kill to live because it is written into the fabric.

The military conscripts people into a separate "order" and makes soldiers murder in that space. I say end wars by refusing to fight them.
IF we can do that, we can repudiate the at least one continuous thread of immorality.

[truthseek]

I'm absolute as well.

I have a strong inner guidance that goes by Love, Compassion and Truth.

It's interesting to note that the moral compass seems to sway back and forth quite lavishly in modern "intelligent?" society.

[rgray222]

It is my firm belief that to understand morality, we must consider both the human and spiritual contexts of our lives. I believe that our morality is inherently flexible; it is changing over time. As I evolve, my preferences evolve, which gives me a better and deeper understanding of what is right and wrong. If we neglect our spiritual morality, we are only getting a limited perspective. If we do not learn certain moral lessons in this life, we may find ourselves reincarnating repeatedly until we fully understand the lesson being taught.

Here is an example of my struggle between the spiritual and the human.

My human morals often see wars as acceptable because they are dictated by societal norms, political beliefs and even practical concerns. At one time, my human morals found war acceptable; I would actually cheer war on so that justice could be achieved, or, dare I admit it, that revenge could be served.

I must make a conscious effort, but when I connect with my spiritual morality, it tells me clearly that compassion and nonviolence are essential. It reminds me of the sacredness of all life. When I immerse myself in this spiritual perspective and gain a sense of clarity, I fully realise that war is fundamentally evil. It is an act carried out by humans with no regard whatsoever for their spiritual morality.

[Mike]

Thanks guys for tackling this one! I've been thinking quite a bit about this lately. I almost let the thread slip into obscurity but I think it's a super important topic. I'm determined to pick the fine minds here on this sometimes slippery subject.

I have quite a few things to say about it, but for now I just want to post this delightful 60 second video that I think will make everyone chuckle:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rp1NnlD7JwY

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Mike (here)
Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It's a version of morality that advocates “to each her own.”

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to a particular standpoint, with no uniquely privileged standpoint.

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of a person or group.

Satanic gobbledygook. A cheap get-out clause for those who have no morality. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Bill Ryan]

A simple real-world example. This was on my mind today.

• Moral relativism:

Steven Bartlett, the host of the YT channel Diary of a CEO, explained (or confessed?) to his interviewee, AI safety advocate Stuart Russell, in this video, the following:

1. He feels driven to interview more and more AI specialists who are seriously concerned about AI safety, and even possibly resulting human extinction, because he deeply cares about that himself.
2. At the same time, he invests heavily in every one of the leading US AI companies. (Why? Because of all the $$$$ he's profited.)

(My own comment: moral relativism is often all about money, personal gain, or national gain. Bartlett's double standard illustrates this perfectly.)

• Moral absolutism:
  (which is often all about moral courage)

The dozens of AI researchers who resigned from Sam Altman's OpenAI to blow the whistle on safety, some of them forgoing $100 million per year salaries and refusing to be paid off to be silent.

[norman]

On a pop level, mass moral relativism caught on in the English universities in the 1920s and 30s. At first is was a weak force hiding in the background behind formal study. It grew slowly to eventually dominate the whole institutional space of higher education without ever becoming a formality. It was the ambient psychological marination that all graduates left flavoured with.

By the time Tony Blair was pushing mass university attendance, his motive was not to give students real education but to indoctrinate and marinate as many young minds as possible with that moral relativism. The choice of 'study' courses were a distant second to the primary conditioning. Oh, and the student debt trap was useful too.

[Mike]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It's a version of morality that advocates “to each her own.”

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to a particular standpoint, with no uniquely privileged standpoint.

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of a person or group.

Satanic gobbledygook. A cheap get-out clause for those who have no morality. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is where it gets interesting..

If morality is absolute, where does it come from?

[norman]

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It's a version of morality that advocates “to each her own.”

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to a particular standpoint, with no uniquely privileged standpoint.

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of a person or group.

Satanic gobbledygook. A cheap get-out clause for those who have no morality. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is where it gets interesting..

If morality is absolute, where does it come from?

Well, for one thing, intellectual morality is something that has already passed through a translation process from something non intellectual.

[rgray222]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
A simple real-world example. This was on my mind today.

• Moral relativism:

Steven Bartlett, the host of the YT channel Diary of a CEO, explained (or confessed?) to his interviewee, AI safety advocate Stuart Russell, in this video, the following:

1. He feels driven to interview more and more AI specialists who are seriously concerned about AI safety, and even possibly resulting human extinction, because he deeply cares about that himself.
2. At the same time, he invests heavily in every one of the leading US AI companies. (Why? Because of all the $$$$ he's profited.)

(My own comment: moral relativism is often all about money, personal gain, or national gain. Bartlett's double standard illustrates this perfectly.)

• Moral absolutism:
  (which is often all about moral courage)

The dozens of AI researchers who resigned from Sam Altman's OpenAI to blow the whistle on safety, some of them foregoing $100 million per year salaries and refusing to be paid off to be silent.

Bill
If I am understanding you correctly, moral absolutism is a view that certain moral principles are universally and unconditionally true, regardless of context, culture, or any other qualifier. These moral principles would include lying, murder or stealing, which I think most people subscribe to, but aren't there instances where that inflexibility, or courage, would be impractical or even harmful? (I really hate it when people pick around the edges of a point to make their own point, but I think in this case it may be necessary (at least for clarification)). Imagine if you hide someone in your home from potential harm. Then a murderer appears at your door with a weapon and asks you where that person is hiding. The principle of honesty would require you to tell the truth, but the principle of protecting innocent life would suggest you should lie to save the person. How does moral absolutism resolve that dilemma?

It seems to me that moral absolutism can create moral confusion, and something would have to give; otherwise, you would be violating a core moral imperative. Also over time , new issues emerge, and existing issues evolve, which can make moral absolutism extremely difficult to maintain.

[Mike]

Posted by norman (here)

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It's a version of morality that advocates “to each her own.”

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to a particular standpoint, with no uniquely privileged standpoint.

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of a person or group.

Satanic gobbledygook. A cheap get-out clause for those who have no morality. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is where it gets interesting..

If morality is absolute, where does it come from?

Well, for one thing, intellectual morality is something that has already passed through a translation process from something non intellectual.

What's that non intellectual thing though?

[I am B]

I believe there is an absolute moral truth rooted in the concept of god.

But at the same time, the way that perfect morality trickles down to us is relative to one another, as is the way we each interact with it, and what becomes true and moral to us.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Mike (here)
If morality is absolute, where does it come from?

I momentarily closed my eyes and asked myself that question. 'Where does morality come from?' The answer was instantaneous. 'It's written in the contract you signed with God.'

A whimsical notion, perhaps, and you can interpret that any way you wish. I take it to mean that when we split from the Godhead as individuated souls, we were given a sacred mission. "Go into the Creation and add to it, and at the same time add to yourselves." Being 'of' God, or 'from' God, we are aware of God as infinite love. At our core, we are infinite love, too. It's our job to bring that love to blossom and spread it wherever it is not. To "act always towards the highest principles of which we've been made aware".

That, I suppose, defines what morality is. And because it's encoded into the very DNA of our souls, it is an absolute. To recognise it, and practice it, we have to be somewhat attuned to that encoding, what it is, what it says, and what it stands for, and to watch out for traps that would have us wander off-script. What could be considered 'off-script'? When others try to rewrite that coding. Enter moral relativism. A good example of it is what governments do. They do it all the time. They do it whenever they say "it's in your best interests". They do it with their social-engineering tricks. When they gaslight the masses into a fake moral stance. See "wokeness" for more.

[sdv]

Posted by rgray222 (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
A simple real-world example. This was on my mind today.

• Moral relativism:

Steven Bartlett, the host of the YT channel Diary of a CEO, explained (or confessed?) to his interviewee, AI safety advocate Stuart Russell, in this video, the following:

1. He feels driven to interview more and more AI specialists who are seriously concerned about AI safety, and even possibly resulting human extinction, because he deeply cares about that himself.
2. At the same time, he invests heavily in every one of the leading US AI companies. (Why? Because of all the $$$$ he's profited.)

(My own comment: moral relativism is often all about money, personal gain, or national gain. Bartlett's double standard illustrates this perfectly.)

• Moral absolutism:
  (which is often all about moral courage)

The dozens of AI researchers who resigned from Sam Altman's OpenAI to blow the whistle on safety, some of them foregoing $100 million per year salaries and refusing to be paid off to be silent.

Bill
If I am understanding you correctly, moral absolutism is a view that certain moral principles are universally and unconditionally true, regardless of context, culture, or any other qualifier. These moral principles would include lying, murder or stealing, which I think most people subscribe to, but aren't there instances where that inflexibility, or courage, would be impractical or even harmful? (I really hate it when people pick around the edges of a point to make their own point, but I think in this case it may be necessary (at least for clarification)). Imagine if you hide someone in your home from potential harm. Then a murderer appears at your door with a weapon and asks you where that person is hiding. The principle of honesty would require you to tell the truth, but the principle of protecting innocent life would suggest you should lie to save the person. How does moral absolutism resolve that dilemma?

It seems to me that moral absolutism can create moral confusion, and something would have to give; otherwise, you would be violating a core moral imperative. Also over time , new issues emerge, and existing issues evolve, which can make moral absolutism extremely difficult to maintain.

In your example, you chose to lie, knowing that is wrong and accept that you have done something morally wrong, but chose to do so in the situation? So, you do not adjust your moral standards to fit the situation but consciously choose to not uphold those standards to protect another person from harm. (If you are a Christian, you then go and pray 'God, please forgive me for lying'! If you are a Catholic, the church has the perfect remedy ... confession!)

What I have a problem with is people insisting that their actions are the result of moral absolutism (according to their standards) when it is obviously not the case. Israel justifying murder and destruction, Lex Friedman defending the mass rape of Ghengis Kahn and his army as a good thing in historical context, everyone framing the blowing up of boats and killing all on board by the USA as wrong because 'you had no proof they were drug smugglers', implying that it would be morally right if they were drug smugglers, and so on.

Bartlett is perhaps the worst kind of moral relativist ... he makes money from his discussions on the dangers of AI, based on a moral judgement, and also makes money from investing in AI. As Bill points out, his actions are not guided by morals but by the desire to accumulate wealth.

Moral absolutism does not mean that you do not ever cross the line, but that when you do, you acknowledge that you have, do not try to justify it, and recommit yourself to trying to uphold those universal and timeless moral values.

[gini]

I take the golden rule -treat others how you want to be treated -as absolute morality ,since we are absolutely one.

[Mike]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
If morality is absolute, where does it come from?

I momentarily closed my eyes and asked myself that question. 'Where does morality come from?' The answer was instantaneous. 'It's written in the contract you signed with God.'

A whimsical notion, perhaps, and you can interpret that any way you wish. I take it to mean that when we split from the Godhead as individuated souls, we were given a sacred mission. "Go into the Creation and add to it, and at the same time add to yourselves." Being 'of' God, or 'from' God, we are aware of God as infinite love. At our core, we are infinite love, too. It's our job to bring that love to blossom and spread it wherever it is not. To "act always towards the highest principles of which we've been made aware".

That, I suppose, defines what morality is. And because it's encoded into the very DNA of our souls, it is an absolute. To recognise it, and practice it, we have to be somewhat attuned to that encoding, what it is, what it says, and what it stands for, and to watch out for traps that would have us wander off-script. What could be considered 'off-script'? When others try to rewrite that coding. Enter moral relativism. A good example of it is what governments do. They do it all the time. They do it whenever they say "it's in your best interests". They do it with their social-engineering tricks. When they gaslight the masses into a fake moral stance. See "wokeness" for more.

I think that's a good answer Mark. And I think I'm mostly in agreement with it.

I heard this quote recently from Dennis Prager: "There are scientific facts, but without God there are no moral facts."

He begins the video by offering up the question: Is murder wrong? Is it evil? Most people would answer yes. But then he poses a harder question: How do you know it's evil?

If we were asked for evidence to prove the earth is round, for example, we could offer pictures or measurements to prove this claim. But if we were asked for evidence to prove that murder is wrong, we couldn't do it.

He concludes that if there is no God, there is no objective morality. In a secular world, there can only be opinions about morality.

If we agree that Prager is correct, the next question naturally becomes: How do we come to know God's objective morality?

To play contrarian for a moment re your position: A Christian or a Jew can prove murder is wrong by quoting the Bible, because they believe the Bible is the word of God. There is no ambiguity and no mental gymnastics involved. There is no inner attunement required, no guesswork at all. Thou shalt not kill is the absolute word of God.

I began making arguments for Judeo-Christian values a while ago as an intellectual exercise, but what's happened as a result of that exercise is that I've come to believe much of what I'm arguing. The value of religion becomes more and more apparent to me as time goes on. This moral relativism discussion just cements that belief.

But I won't mince words with you - I agree with what you've written. If I were to place it in a Catholic context, I might call it the holy spirit.

The only issue with it is that it still leaves us vulnerable to subjectivity. It's still corruptible. Because humans are devious creatures, we may convince ourselves that we're consulting the holy spirit, or our spiritual DNA, when in reality we're just bending morality to fit our devious needs. I've done this countless times during my life.

I think morality is largely absolute because there is nothing more real than your own pain. When you are treated immorally by someone else, you feel it in the depths of your soul. You cannot intellectualize or philosophize your way out of it.

As I sit and think about it right now, I think good and evil at the extremes are absolute; however, there is some grey area in the middle. Without straining our imaginations we can all think of examples where murder would be the morally correct action to take. Even the Bible doesn't offer up all the endless permutations of each and every situation that may present itself, so even Bible believers are forced to consult their inner voice (spiritual DNA, holy spirit) in these grey area matters. It's unavoidable.


This is the video I mentioned earlier in my post for anyone who's interested. 5 mins long:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=yrcQ_PTkVD4