[Mushroomcup]

Originally Posted by Lightman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I honestly don't understand why moral relativism gets brought up as much as it does in ethical discussions; it is not really an ethical position (well, it is in some cases, but the arguments for it as an ethical system are bad and easily defeated) but more having to do with history or sociology. The real meta-ethical debate is between any other ethical system and moral nihilism (which moral relativism, as an ethical system, logically entails).

Whether an objective ethical system can accommodate opposing moral judgments is an interesting topic, and it stems directly from moral relativism. For example, I could imagine a situation for which the same circumstances would be moral in one society and immoral in another and, under utilitarian ethics, both societies would be "correct" (meaning both societies would have increased utility even though they enforce opposite actions).

Also, just practically, moral relativism raises issues of ethics to a lot of people who would otherwise not be very interested in the topic. So, it tends to be mentioned in ethical discussions even when it is only tangential to the main issue. I think it's cool.

[stiletto]

Morality is always circumstantial, it is at best a sort of crude/generalized ethical guideline intended for those who lack the perspective to find the true greatest good in any given circumstance via their own means. If one has the correct perspective (ie: detachment, selflessness/ an absence of self interest) then any action typically seen as immoral (killing, harming, whatever) can actually be a path to the greatest good in some circumstances. However as one would expect, cultivating this kind of perspective would be very difficult, so 'morality' still serves a useful purpose for essentially all of us. Its importance in ethics is just commonly overstated, imo. So while I recognize moral relativism, I have some philosophical issues with morality in general (in the social, prescriptive sense, at least) so I tend to regard all of morality as more a sort of suggestion lacking in nuance than anything absolute.

[Thrawn]

Originally Posted by stiletto To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Morality is always circumstantial, it is at best a sort of crude/generalized ethical guideline intended for those who lack the perspective to find the true greatest good in any given circumstance via their own means. If one has the correct perspective (ie: detachment, selflessness/ an absence of self interest) then any action typically seen as immoral (killing, harming, whatever) can actually be a path to the greatest good in some circumstances.

It would seem to me this means that either intentions are the only thing that matter or they don't matter at all. After-all if consequentialism is to be taken as the best moral basis then we must deal with the problem that humans can never accurately predict the future, also there is the question of when do we determine the greatest good? Is it the immediate results of an action or the results in 20 years down the road?

[stiletto]

Originally Posted by Thrawn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It would seem to me this means that either intentions are the only thing that matter or they don't matter at all. After-all if consequentialism is to be taken as the best moral basis then we must deal with the problem that humans can never accurately predict the future, also there is the question of when do we determine the greatest good? Is it the immediate results of an action or the results in 20 years down the road?

Intention would be critical, but it would have to be coupled with wisdom or insight to be worth a damn when put into action.

As for timescale, I'd imagine that both short term and long term repercussions would be considered with detachment/ a lack of self-interest.

Agreed that there is no way to predict the outcome, but that will always be a concern of any action taken, as every venture poses risk. But this eliminates what I see to be one of the more perilous pitfalls of conventional morality, essentially 'doing the right thing for the wrong reasons'.

[Chasester]

There are two types of claims, "Preference claims" and "Knowledge Claims". A preference claim is a claim which is subjective in nature, like Chocolate Ice-cream is good. A Knowledge claim is a claim that is true regardless of the opinion of anyone. If everyone believed that the earth was flat doesn't change it from being round. Likewise a tricky one but also a knowledge claim is the fact that I like Chocolate Ice-cream. It's a knowledge claim based on a my personal preference.

I say all of this to lay the groundwork for the following: When people say There is no absolute truth they are making a knowledge claim, you can't just dismiss their claim as "that's your view" just like you couldn't dismiss a scientist insisting that the earth is round with "that's your view".

However, when someone says "there is no absolute truth" they are saying there is no such thing as a knowledge claim then turning around and saying "well...except this one." The statement is self refuting.

If the phrase was refined to say that "there is no absolute morality" then one would not only have to refute any existing evidence to the contrary but then erect a pile of evidence in it's place.

I think while somethings are subjective like the age one marries or the details of when it's ok to kill another human being, almost all humans agree that the common man can't have anyone he pleases, and things like baby rape and genocide are wrong. Those that commit the latter usually go to great lengths to justify (to themselves and others) that their case is special. Usually by rationalizing that the certain sect they're killing is deserving of death.