19-10-2004 21:17									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Moral relativism can't be used to justify an action, that's just nonsensical.

	19-10-2004 21:19									#32
	Full PM-box? Change here!

What's even more absurd, actually, is using a moral code to justify some action:

Why'd you do that?

Because it's morally right to do so.

Why is it morally right?

Because it is.

Why is it, though?

Just because it is.

And so on...

Morality is dogmatism.

	19-10-2004 21:20									#33
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Cultural relativism just doesn't make sense. Cultures aren't "valid" or "invalid". They just are there.

I may be wrong but I thought cultural relativism does not say that cultures are valid or invalid, it does say that morals are culture-specific (so just a variation of moral relativism).

	19-10-2004 21:22									#34
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: How can it be good or bad? That kind of makes moral relativism absurd.

Are you sure that the concepts of good and bad that are not absurd?

However, you're also missing a vital point; moral relativism is not amoral per se. It's the position that morals are given by some kind of cultural context, not by some absolute moral codex that exists bwyond human existance.

	19-10-2004 21:22									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The correct answer, of course, is:

Why'd you do this?

Because it achieves such-and-such end.

Why did you try to achieve such-and-such end?

Because I believe I must do so.

Why do you believe that?

There is no purpose to that belief; I simply hold it. It is my belief. There is no answer to your question.

In which case, it is still dogmatism, but at least openly admitted dogmatism.

	19-10-2004 21:22									#36
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker What's even more absurd, actually, is using a moral code to justify some action: Why'd you do that? Because it's morally right to do so. Why is it morally right? Because it is. Why is it, though? Just because it is. And so on... Morality is dogmatism.

Of course in that sense it would be stupid. But all societies use moral norms - and they have to justify them somehow.

	19-10-2004 21:23									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Kuciwalker: Nah, it's not about whether cultures are valid or not. It basically means that some practises that are "immoral" in one culture not necessarily are immoral in another. Like forced marriage, which is not OK in the West, is deemed OK when it happens in Muslim societies because it's their culture.
Needless to say CR sucks.

edit: massive x-post

	19-10-2004 21:23									#38
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by BeBro I may be wrong but I thought cultural relativism does not say that cultures are valid or invalid, it does say that morals are culture-specific (so just a variation of moral relativism).

In which case it's simply an empirical claim. Obviously, cultures have morals, and most moral systems are associated with some culture. But to claim that the morals have some objective truth applying to members of that culture is a violation of moral relativism.

	19-10-2004 21:24									#39
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Moral relativism can't be used to justify an action, that's just nonsensical.

Exactly. So it's not an ethical code.

	19-10-2004 21:24									#40
	Suffering from ads?

Nice cross postings here

	19-10-2004 21:24									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Gangerolf Nah, it's not about whether cultures are valid or not. It basically means that some practises that are "immoral" in one culture not necessarily are immoral in another. Like forced marriage, which is not OK in the West, is deemed OK when it happens in Muslim societies because it's their culture. Needless to say CR sucks.

In that case, it is an empirical claim - this culture's moral system claims that such-and-such is moral, while this other culture's moral system thinks that it is immoral. It's obviously true.

	19-10-2004 21:25									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Exactly. So it's not an ethical code.

That's what I've been saying.

That's why moral relativism isn't internally inconsistent.

	19-10-2004 21:27									#43
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker What's even more absurd, actually, is using a moral code to justify some action:

I would rather have any moral code as opposed to none at all. Moral codes aren't absurd. They make sense. Not having one makes no sense at all. If you can't call actions good or bad then you can't really participate in the debate. All you can do is say that everyone is wrong, but you can't even be right yourself.

	19-10-2004 21:29									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker That's what I've been saying. That's why moral relativism isn't internally inconsistent.

Of course not. It isn't even a ethical code, so who cares about it's consistency.

	19-10-2004 21:33									#45
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kropotkin Are you sure that the concepts of good and bad that are not absurd?

Of course I do. Are you sure that they are?

quote: However, you're also missing a vital point; moral relativism is not amoral per se. It's the position that morals are given by some kind of cultural context, not by some absolute moral codex that exists bwyond human existance.

Saying that morals are determined by culture is nothing different. Of course they are, this is a fact, but if you don't prefer one ethical code to another then you are amoral.

	19-10-2004 21:33									#46
	Remove this text

Moral relativism is a valid theory about the "rightness" and "wrongness" of cultural morality worldviews: morals cannot be based on some transcendental "truth".

But given that there is no transcendental truth, there is no "objective" "good" or objective "bad", so we're quite at liberty to make up our own "good" and "bad" and impose them as we see fit, provided that said imposition is justified by our own moral code.

	19-10-2004 21:36									#47
	Remove this text

Relativism has its merits to refute intolerant, dogmatic positions. But it fails (which was even admitted in this thread) completely when it comes to the justification of moral standards or norms, because then you have to go through a decision-making process where you have to find reasons for specific positions. But then you cannot think all possible positions are equally valid.

	19-10-2004 21:39									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Moral standard is a contract between a group of people. They can make the contract anyway they want, as long as they all agree to it.

	19-10-2004 21:41									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker In that case, it is an empirical claim - this culture's moral system claims that such-and-such is moral, while this other culture's moral system thinks that it is immoral. It's obviously true.

Not exactly. But close
Maybe I didn't explain it properly.
Read more here if you wish http://www.philosophyofreligion.inf...relativism.html

They explain my main beef with CR pretty well:

quote: This strength of cultural relativism, however, is also its weakness. Cultural relativism excuses us from judging the moral status of other cultures in cases where that seems inappropriate, but it also renders us powerless to judge the moral status of other cultures in cases where that seems necessary. Faced with a culture that deems slavery morally acceptable, it seems appropriate to judge that society to be morally inferior to our own. Faced with a culture that deems ethnic cleansing morally acceptable, it seems appropriate to condemn that society as morally abhorrent.

	19-10-2004 21:42									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

A lot of people believe that truth is not transendental. That doesn't make them moral relativists. They know that the ethical code that they believe in can't alway provide the right answers, but they prefer one over the other.

	19-10-2004 21:45									#51
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Snowflake Moral standard is a contract between a group of people. They can make the contract anyway they want, as long as they all agree to it.

Not all people are going to agree with it.

	19-10-2004 21:45									#52
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I would note that moral/ethical behave is about what is *good*. In particular, a human ethical system is about what is good for humans to do (and what is bad for them to do).

"Good" in its simplist sense, is about what is desirable/beneficial to those concerned. Evaluating wether a particular ethical system for humans actually produces good ends is a perfectly valid question. In other words, ethics are about desirable behavior for humans to have; what behavior they should have to promote the good. Some ethical system simply do this better than others.

For instance, if I proposed that everyone should should commit suicide, and that was a moral mandate, then I would then have to prove how that was for the good; how that aided the welfare of humans.

Some religious ethical system, then propose that the good of the soul is more important than the good of the body (very roughly speaking). Of course, what the soul is, its existence, and wether its good is more important to the welfare of people than the good of the body are all debateable topics.

Utilitarianism supposes that the good is happiness, and that this should be maximized as much as possible for all concerned. This rather simply stated axiom of the system can lead to a rather convoluted mess when evaluated some particular situations.

Ethical systems are just a random collection of rules. There is an end they are supposed to acheive, and some ethical systems are inferior at acheiving this end.

Moral Relativism then, is the easy way out of the evaluation, imho. You are simply stating: they are all equal and so why bother with evaluations? It certainly sounds nice, and it is often innoffensive to hear*, but that does not make it true.

As a side note, someone can certainly believe moral relativism is true and have their own particular moral code. Believing moral relativism is true means you can have any moral code you want; and that moral code might indepedently evaluate moral relativism as a good or a bad thing (often the latter), but a moral evaluation of "bad" certainly doesn't mean something is false.

Of course, if anyone disagrees feel free to correct me. I started the thread because I wanted to discuss this (and I thought the poll would be amusing).

-Drachasor

*Of course, it is not always innoffensive to hear, for someone that truly believes moral relativism is true would have to say that the Americans taking over land and killing the Native Americans was just as valid as the the Native American moral outrage over it. Most advocates of moral relativism don't readily understand this corollary.

	19-10-2004 21:49									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious quote: Originally posted by Snowflake Moral standard is a contract between a group of people. They can make the contract anyway they want, as long as they all agree to it. Not all people are going to agree with it.

That's what divide people into different ethical groups.

	19-10-2004 21:51									#54
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor *Of course, it is not always innoffensive to hear, for someone that truly believes moral relativism is true would have to say that the Americans taking over land and killing the Native Americans was just as valid as the the Native American moral outrage over it. Most advocates of moral relativism don't readily understand this corollary.

In fact, the English immigrants killing Native American was NOT considered immoral at the time. This is exactly the point of Moral Relativism. And the ethical codes have changed over time and now we believe that it was indeed a bad thing.

	19-10-2004 21:52									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Snowflake,

I know, but what are you getting at?

x-post

Last edited by Kidicious on 19-10-2004 at 21:59

	19-10-2004 21:53									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Snowflake In fact, the English immigrants killing Native American was NOT considered immoral at the time. This is exactly the point of Moral Relativism. And the ethical codes have changed over time and now we believe that it was indeed a bad thing.

But it was a bad thing, and it was caused because they had a bad ethical code.

	19-10-2004 21:59									#57
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Oh for gods sake, is this some kind of conspiracy against my fingers? Well it's not GOING TO HAPPEN!! Relativism pwns (relatively) all of your arses, and I'm riding on the back of both beasts, so either take off your clothes and grab onto the love handles, or prepare to be trampled by the hooves of superior logic and annoying paradoxes.

	19-10-2004 22:00									#59
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Nice try

	19-10-2004 22:01									#60
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Snowflake, I know, but what are you getting at? x-post

That moral is relative.