# relativism vs. objective morality **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 15, 2004, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relativism-vs-objective-morality/274904 "2004-11-15T18:50:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Teine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Teine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Teine)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relativism-vs-objective-morality/274904/241 "2004-11-30T14:40:45Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Ok, I think. Are you sure, though? You would not find it “unusual”? Really? I suspect I am being whoosed or you are being deliberately obtuse. I wouldn’t. I would find it within the bounds of usual human behavior at a certain percentage level. The only thing I would find unusual is if the person committing suicide altered the overall statistics signficantly. > [@pervert](#): > > That is exactly the relativist claim. That there is no way to rely or not rely (in any way other than faithful execution of some system) on any of the possibilities for evaluating moral systems. Not true. The relativist claim is that there is no non-arbitrary way to prefer one system over another. > [@pervert](#): > > I agree. Why not propose that moralities which include using these tools for this prupose amongst the moral things which can be done are therefore superior to moralities which do not? 😉 Because I don’t believe this is the case. > [@pervert](#): > > I don’t think I said this. On preview, I did. I said it in the form of a badly worded question. Let me try again. Ok, you do not agree that a moral agent must choose a morality based on his needs. I do not either. I meant should or some other word. More precisely, I meant that moralities are picked or used in order to satisfy some need. Can you agree to that? That I can agree to. > [@pervert](#): > > Ok, but why is “comfortable with” the framework we should use? What about that helps me decide which morality to choose? It is not necessarily the one we “should” choose. I believe that it happens to be the one most people choose. It could help you decide by pointing to a moral system that you would be happier with. Most people are happier when they are comfortable. Or it might not. I don’t know. It would depend on you. > [@pervert](#): > > You see no way to absolutely evaluate that moral system over another which places other goals above suicide. Correct? Correct. > [@pervert](#): > > But then where do they get one in the first place and why is that method used over some other? Is it really possible for a moral agent to live and die entirely without morals? That seems both an implied possibility and a contradiction. I believe that initial moral systems arise from basic instincts. Teaching, environment, and personal choice then come into play. > [@pervert](#): > > Perhaps we have reached an axiom lock after all. Can you at least try to formulate what such a thing would look like? A person who for no greater reason than his own choice decides to die? I can’t comprehend it. A person with such a moral system would, probably, look the same as any other person. Only their actions would be different. I can’t necessarily fully comprehend it either, but I can allow for the possibility. > [@pervert](#): > > There is no need to postulate that suicide, honor, or any other of the samurai’s moral positions moved in any way. Perhaps not, but that is the way I view it. Given that I view moral systems as descriptive, I can see that what you describe is as good an explanation as what I described. Both fit the observed behaviors and actions. > [@pervert](#): > > ok, but then it begs the question. Why use that standard? Why not? > [@pervert](#): > > I agree. Again, I did not say that all cases of choice interference were objectively detectable. I merely said that not all such cases were entirely subjective. If not all cases of choice interference are objectively detectable, then the phenomenon is not objectively measurable. Or, more directly, if you try your answer will be incorrect. > [@pervert](#): > > No, it was not where we started this subthread. We started it me suggesting that other characteristics of a “whole life” besides biological length may be objective and you denying it. We have ended it with you insisting that the lack of evidence for a demonic possesion of some sort is evidenc that there are no such objective characteristics. No, I asked how you could objectively measure “living someone else’s life”. You responded that choice could be restricted. That does not seem to me to answer my question, because restricted choice does not translate to living someone else’s life, it translates to destroying someone else’s life. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relativism-vs-objective-morality/274904/242 "2004-11-30T21:37:40Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Forgive me. You are not reading my post carefully enough. The reason you should believe my claim is because I am not claiming the my position on the issue you mentioned is an axiom at all. How can we have axiom lock on an issue when my position on it is not axiomatic? Axiom: A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate. (American Heritage, definition 3.) If you’d rather something considered more authoritative, perhaps OED Definition 2 will help: “Logic. A proposition (whether true or false).” (Definitions 1 and 3 require some form of consensus or immediate assent.) > [@](#): > > But you aren’t saying that I am discoursing uncivilly, are you? Of course he knows his beliefs better than I do. I presume you allow that I know mine better than you, yes? Irrelevant. You were the one making claims about **Teine** ’s beliefs, by claiming that you shared the principles used as basis for the argument. He has claimed that you do not, using the sound basis that he does not agree with the assumptions you have put forth. > [@](#): > > I don’t understand how you are using the word absolute then. Perhaps you can provide a definition which demonstrates that they are contextless. My understanding was that they applied to all contexts. And thus require none to be specified. > [@](#): > > But if you have never encountered it, have no conception of it, how can your moral system already contain a judgement of it? If the general principles apply, it only takes the application of tools. Similarly, my mathematical system can contain solutions for problems I have yet to encounter. If I find insoluble problems, I may have to either invent or look externally for more mathematics. > [@](#): > > Because the relativist position seems to me to be that there are no such “inadequacies” which are not part of the moral system. Or rather no way to judge them except from within the moral system. My question is the if a moral system knows enough about an inadequacy to pass judgement on potential solutions to it, why are those solutions not already part of the moral system? Because the situation has not yet come up to reveal the inadequacy. I am, I repeat, not omniscient. If a car engine stops running consistently with temperatures notably below zero, but its owner lives in Florida, that owner is not terribly likely to become aware of the deficiency in the engine any time soon – they may, in fact, go through the car’s entire lifespan without ever coming across a situation where the car’s mechanical problems are revealed. On the other hand, they may drive to North Dakota one winter, and then have the information that reveals the defects in the engine. At that point, they may find something that can be used to modify or repair the engine so that it will continue to run, or they may buy a new car. > [@](#): > > I never suggested that we make a judgement without humans. I simply said that a moral system might exist even if no particular human had adopted it. It might be written down, for instance. You are asking another form of the same questions I have asked above. How do moral systems get built. If they cannot exist outside already practiced moral systems, then they can never contain new principles. No? No. Humans are inventive little bastards. They’re always coming up with new ideas. > [@](#): > > Yes, this I agree with. But just because a system has not been “deemed” to be better than some other system does not mean that it is not actually better. It certainly does not mean that it does not exist or that we cannot discuss, evaluate, or think about it. If _nobody_ evaluates it to be better than the system they already had, in what way can it be said to be “actually better”? It fails empirically. > [@](#): > > This indicates to me that if I were to understand your moral system, I would need to understand your “context” (which in this use I take to mean every subjective detail about your thoughts, beliefs and experiences). > > Taken together, these two propositions seem to me to indicate that it is impossible for me to evaluate your moral system. Or that of any other person for that matter. Given that, it seems impossible, once again, for me to be able to add or modify my own moral system based on moral systems encountered outside myself. I suspect that it is impossible to _know_ another person’s moral system completely and fully assimilate their axioms. I also suspect that very few people, if any, have adopted a moral principle that claims they cannot make judgements based on incomplete knowledge; such a principle strikes me as likely to be _extremely_ nonfunctional, since complete knowledge is effectively impossible. In other words, it’s not a useful axiom to me. Since I do not take as given that I must have complete knowledge before making judgements, I am free to choose whatever level of knowledge I deem sufficient for doing so, whether it is a snap judgement or ten years of intense study. > [@](#): > > But this is not true. Ok, you can’t erase your brain, but you can learn another method of choosing moarlities besides using your present one to judge them. I suggested a couple. Given that, there is no reason to privilege your method over any others. Right? Yes, I could choose a system that does not address my concerns or which goes against what I know from my experiences to be true. I have no particular reason to _want_ to, so I don’t; my current moral evaluation indicates to me that that would be an inferior system. > [@](#): > > No, not at all. This framework is not a moral argument nor indeed a moral framework. It is, however a framework by which moral systems could be ranked. The question becomes why could it not be privileged above all the moral systems in question? I’m not saying it should or shouldn’t. But relativism says the it cannot. Specifically that you cannot claim that any moral system which could other wise be used to rank moral systems cannot be privileged above the “counting of 'A’s” system. That is the second tenet of moral relativism. Cannot be deemed superior _without having a system to do the ranking_. > [@](#): > > Except, of course, that evaluating a person’s most frequent “failing” requires the adoption of some moral system. If the first system adopted does not register that “failing” as a failing, then they have no need of any other system. Right? Correct. > [@](#): > > You see, again, I really find this very close to the idea of the “life of the individual” I was talking about earlier. If I may use your terminology (and please forgive and correct me if I misuse it). It seems to me that one could postulate a moral code which place the fulfilment of the “shai” at the bottom of the list. It seems to me that under the metaphysical proposition you have laid out, such a code could be absolutely evaluated as less applicable to people with “Shai” (what’s the plural) than a system which did not place them at the bottom absolutely. In other words, such an evalutation would apply to all people with “Shai”. I assuming that you hold everyone has such a thing, yes? If so, then such an evaluation would be absolute for all people. I suspect the plural of ‘shai’ is ‘shaiu’, but I’m not certain; I’ve only seen it used in the singular. Not all people care about their shai (as a concept, I suspect it is not considered highly by either the “you can do anything you want to do” sorts or all those who reject any such thing as some sort of silly foredestination or fate and don’t believe in that sort of crap). Not all people are _aware_ of what their shai is, and some who believe they know it are quite likely mistaken (I know I have been mistaken about my long-term life destination several times). Both of these mean that the concept of shai as part of a system of making choices cannot be a universal – it is neither universally known nor universally valued. _My_ beliefs are not relevant to this; the selection of my filter to judge the morality of all of humanity is arbitrary. There is no reason to privilege my point of view over that of someone who does not believe in shai when dealing with humans in general. > [@](#): > > Let me stop you right there. There seems to be a drive on your part to adopt one goal at a time. Why is that? Because if I listed off all my goals at a given point in time and then said, “And _this_ is the one that I’m going to use as an example” and continued, the thread would be much longer and significantly less informative. > [@](#): > > But you see, here again, you are over simplifying the case to one in which the moral agent chooses suicide an nothing else to value. No, I am trying not to get distracted by needless complexity. > [@](#): > > He would still have to breath and move among a great many other things while he positioned himself such that he could achieve this goal. He would, in short, have to achieve many other minor goals along the way to achieving suicide. So what? Some of those things are quite certainly only deemed good because they facilitate the chosen goal; others are necessary annoyances. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relativism-vs-objective-morality/274904/243 "2004-12-01T05:22:19Z")
> [@Lilairen](#): > > You were the one making claims about **Teine** ’s beliefs, by claiming that you shared the principles used as basis for the argument. No, not really. You still have not been reading carefully. What I said is that the principles you are calling my axioms are not my axioms at all. The only thing I claimed **Teine** agreed with me was that we use standard english definitions of words. As it turns out I was, in fact, wrong about that. > [@Teine](#): > > I wouldn’t. Let me make sure I understand you. The question I asked to which you answered this was to confirm this statement of yours: “_Without personal knowledge of the people around me, I would not find it unexpected or odd for one of them to commit suicide._” I interpret this to mean that if you were walking down the street and a person near you blew his brains out you would not react as if anything unusual or unexpected had happend at all. In this case, I think we have reached an impass. We do not agree that the definition of the word “odd” means what it says. Given that, I doubt that we agree that the English language is really our communication medium. In light of that I no longer think we have any method for doing so. I actually think you two and I are closer on some points than you would like to admit. Certain statements you’ve made seem very close indeed to some of the things I have been saying. However, perhaps I am reading a certain meaning into the words you are using which you do not mean. I usually try very hard to avoid this. But if you believe that my statements are my axioms when I specifically say they are open to discussion, and that a suicide near you is not odd, then we are not speaking the same language. Once again, I appreciate your participation so far in this thread. I have learned a lot. I am very doubtful, however, that any further communication between us would in fact be communication. Thands, and I’ll give you the last word between us. He has claimed that you do not, using the sound basis that he does not agree with the assumptions you have put forth. And thus require none to be specified. If the general principles apply, it only takes the application of tools. Similarly, my mathematical system can contain solutions for problems I have yet to encounter. If I find insoluble problems, I may have to either invent or look externally for more mathematics. Because the situation has not yet come up to reveal the inadequacy. I am, I repeat, not omniscient. If a car engine stops running consistently with temperatures notably below zero, but its owner lives in Florida, that owner is not terribly likely to become aware of the deficiency in the engine any time soon – they may, in fact, go through the car’s entire lifespan without ever coming across a situation where the car’s mechanical problems are revealed. On the other hand, they may drive to North Dakota one winter, and then have the information that reveals the defects in the engine. At that point, they may find something that can be used to modify or repair the engine so that it will continue to run, or they may buy a new car. No. Humans are inventive little bastards. They’re always coming up with new ideas. If _nobody_ evaluates it to be better than the system they already had, in what way can it be said to be “actually better”? It fails empirically. I suspect that it is impossible to _know_ another person’s moral system completely and fully assimilate their axioms. I also suspect that very few people, if any, have adopted a moral principle that claims they cannot make judgements based on incomplete knowledge; such a principle strikes me as likely to be _extremely_ nonfunctional, since complete knowledge is effectively impossible. In other words, it’s not a useful axiom to me. Since I do not take as given that I must have complete knowledge before making judgements, I am free to choose whatever level of knowledge I deem sufficient for doing so, whether it is a snap judgement or ten years of intense study. Yes, I could choose a system that does not address my concerns or which goes against what I know from my experiences to be true. I have no particular reason to _want_ to, so I don’t; my current moral evaluation indicates to me that that would be an inferior system. Cannot be deemed superior _without having a system to do the ranking_. Correct. I suspect the plural of ‘shai’ is ‘shaiu’, but I’m not certain; I’ve only seen it used in the singular. Not all people care about their shai (as a concept, I suspect it is not considered highly by either the “you can do anything you want to do” sorts or all those who reject any such thing as some sort of silly foredestination or fate and don’t believe in that sort of crap). Not all people are _aware_ of what their shai is, and some who believe they know it are quite likely mistaken (I know I have been mistaken about my long-term life destination several times). Both of these mean that the concept of shai as part of a system of making choices cannot be a universal – it is neither universally known nor universally valued. _My_ beliefs are not relevant to this; the selection of my filter to judge the morality of all of humanity is arbitrary. There is no reason to privilege my point of view over that of someone who does not believe in shai when dealing with humans in general. Because if I listed off all my goals at a given point in time and then said, “And _this_ is the one that I’m going to use as an example” and continued, the thread would be much longer and significantly less informative. No, I am trying not to get distracted by needless complexity. So what? Some of those things are quite certainly only deemed good because they facilitate the chosen goal; others are necessary annoyances. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relativism-vs-objective-morality/274904/244 "2004-12-01T06:09:35Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > This is indeed what I have understood to be your position. No. I have not proposed that any particular moral principle has to be the highest of highs. I have only been interested in addressing the general relativist principle that no absolute framework exists from which to evaluate moral systems. I have not proposed any particular moral principle that must be this highest of highs. Frankly, I consider this another debate. Having said that, IMHO you are not very far off at all. Personally, I believe that the life of the individual is the highest of highs for a rational moral system. This includes as part of that life the need to make choices. But it means that such choices have to be made for the benefit of that individual. If you only look at choices as alterations in reality, you may still be left with moral systems which allow any choices as long as they are restricted to benefiting someone else, for instance. I could, for instance propose a formulation of facism based on increasing choices. That is not an argument against what you are proposing. But I think it is evidence that your formulation has not yet led you where you want to go. > [@](#): > > I think that this is because you haven’t quite grasped it, or “internalized” it. However, I don’t think that this is a failure of yours so much as it is a failure of mine to communicate it well enough–or a failure of language to allow me to. Don’t be so sure. You have certainly proposed an interesting formula. I have plenty of faith that language is capable of expressing it. And FWIW I have plenty of evidence in this thread and others that you are more than capable of it as well. This leaves me with 2 possibilities. My money is on me misunderstanding. > [@](#): > > It is a CLOSE restatement, but I’m not sure that it fully communicates the essence. I’m not having much luck with these either. I keep coming up with refinements that edge closer to it, without quite getting there. Perhaps a few more tries? > > Moral agents want to “shape” the world. (Too vague) > A moral agent sees that an opportunity to choose exists: The moral agent wants to make the choice. (Too strong) > A moral agent sees that an opportunity to choose exists: The moral agent wants the choice made to be the one he would have made. (Not strong enough) I think what you are missing is the purpose for the changes in the first place. Try and think of the changes as serving a greater purpose. Something all moral agents have. > [@](#): > > Another approach. […] I’m not sure I’ve read the same things between the lines of your example. But I recognize the experience you describe. I had a very similar one watching my children pass through that stage of life. I remember thinking at my son’s birth “He knows the secrets of the universe.” What I meant was that every act he took was without a second thought. (I know most of them were without a first thought, but stay with me) He moved, acted, and in some small way, chose only those things in those ways which could satisfy the very simple needs he had at the time via the tools he had at the time. As he grew his needs grew. His tool sets grew. Because of these things, his choices grew. Eventually he learned to think (after a fashion, he is a 14 year old boy ;)). He began to make more and more abstract concepts. This increased his available tool set by orders of magnitude. As he’s grown, he has been able to choose things that are harmful and things that are helpful. To him. I understand the experience you are describing, though. > [@](#): > > What I witnessed was a progression of efforts to try to control reality as they saw it. Yes. Exactly. But not merely to change reality. The efforts were to change reality for some purpose or other. If you had to conceptuallize, or generalize all the purposes you saw, what would you call them? > [@](#): > > Suicide keeps coming up again and again in this thread. I’m not sure if this is your intention, but a number of your posts give the appearance that you are trying to start from a moral stance (suicide is bad) and work your way backwards to an objective justification for this stance. No, that is not my intention. It is a result of the fact that I am trying very hard _not_ to propose any particular morality at all. As a result I have to speak of moral systems and moral principles in very generalized terms. > [@](#): > > You seem to be coming from the angle that a depressed person who commits suicide is either committing an absolutely immoral act or that their moral systems have failed. Let me say once and for all that I make no moral judgement whatsoever against anyone who committed suicide. I would never make the judgement that a person who committed suicide was evil for that reason. I would, further, think very critically of anyone who did. Anyone who is reading this who took offence by thinking I was making any such judgement about a suicide victim please accept my appologies. I am clumsily struggling to express things which are not very clear to me. If I stray into territory you find offensive please forgive me. > [@](#): > > In sum, even when I can’t always explain it, there has yet to be an example mentioned here that I can’t pretty easily see a way to trace back to this inherent desire for choosers to choose, in much the same way that the amoeba chooses to envelop this food item, copy itself, and continue, if only as a way of moving to the next food item. Yes, but be careful giving this sort of thing more weight than it deserves. There have been many psychological theories which have the same trait. Many religions, as well. The fact that a theory can be interpreted to explain most things is not the same as saying that a theory explains those things. The difference having to do with predictability and perhaps falsifiability. I confess to not understanding this theory of science thouroughly enought to explain it fully. [Wikipedia article on falsifiability.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) I’m going to take a couple days off. I’ll see you after the weekend. If I can control my addiction to this board that long. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relativism-vs-objective-morality/274904/245 "2004-12-01T06:11:09Z")
Oh for crying out loud. That was a very crappy coding job on my part one post back. Sorry about including the whole reply post at the end. ---
**Author:** ![Teine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Teine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Teine)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relativism-vs-objective-morality/274904/246 "2004-12-01T15:30:48Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Let me make sure I understand you. The question I asked to which you answered this was to confirm this statement of yours: “Without personal knowledge of the people around me, I would not find it unexpected or odd for one of them to commit suicide.” > > I interpret this to mean that if you were walking down the street and a person near you blew his brains out you would not react as if anything unusual or unexpected had happend at all. That is not correct. Let me see if I can make this clear. I would not find it unusual that the person committed suicide, because it is a statistically normal occurrence for a certain percentage of people to commit suicide each year. I _would_ find it unusual that the person _died right in front of me_, because that is _not_ a statistically normal occurence. At this time in my life, no one has ever died right in front of me. Thus, someone doing so would significantly change the statistics. So in this hypothetical case, I would be reacting to the death in close proximity, not the suicide. I think much of the communications difficulties between us stem from the fact that we seem to focus on different things. I know that in many instances, I’ve felt that you have ignored, or not recognized, a distinction that I find important, like the suicide hypothetical above. I’ve probably done the same with distinctions you find important. We obviously have different understandings of the word “need”, for example. As far as I’m concerned, I’ve always understood that you were open to discussion on the statements you’ve made supporting your attempt to construct this absolute ranking system. The differing understandings and areas of focus that have become obvious in this thread are where I perceive our axioms to be different. I don’t know exactly how they are different, but if we were working from the same axioms, I don’t think we would have run into the difficulties we have. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relativism-vs-objective-morality/274904/247 "2004-12-01T19:21:46Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > I agree entirely if you mean that we cannot base an absolute system on subjectivity. I think **erislover** ’s principle of non ambiguity was intended to cover this. At least I think so. If your still reading, **erislover** could you confirm this? It was meant to exclude pure subjectivity in a “solipsism” sense, but not subjective measures as such. The value of an object, say, an exercize bike, can be given in the money the store clerk finds reasonable to charge, or the price at which I may buy it. The economy is, in general, a subjective system of value, but not in a solipsistic sense. Certainly in a relativistic sense. So we must just be clear that we mean “subjective” in one way, namely that I am the source of values I recognize, and not the other, which is that only I can know what my values are. The latter is intrinsically ambiguous, the former is merely a matter of communication. And it is not clear that the former excludes an absolute methodology where the individual, and hence its subjectivity, is merely the context and not the source of moral values. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relativism-vs-objective-morality/274904/248 "2004-12-01T19:42:29Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > IAnd it is not clear that the former excludes an absolute methodology where the individual, and hence its subjectivity, is merely the context and not the source of moral values. i think this is what i tried to do starting in post 170. the basic idea is that a moral agent will always make the choice that he prefers (now, just how do we define prefers?) and as such is simply a context for a “moral system” imposed by reality. however, there really is no guidance in such a system, and every moral agent then behaves differently in what we would normally consider situations calling for a “moral decision”. thus, i don’t think it is a moral system at all, and if my hypothesis is true (it seems self-evident, but i propose no way of proving it) there really is no such thing as “morality”. we all have our own definitions of “right” and “wrong”. ---
**Author:** ![Teine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Teine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Teine)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relativism-vs-objective-morality/274904/249 "2004-12-01T20:35:32Z")
> [@Ramanujan](#): > > thus, i don’t think it is a moral system at all, and if my hypothesis is true (it seems self-evident, but i propose no way of proving it) there really is no such thing as “morality”. we all have our own definitions of “right” and “wrong”. I think I agree in general with your hypothesis, but I’m not sure that I agree that eliminates “morality” entirely. If “morality” is defined as a description of the code of conduct used by an individual (the list of what is “right” and what is “wrong” for that individual), then it can easily be shown to exist. It will change as the individual’s list of “right” and “wrong” actions changes. From there, it is possible for separate individual’s to choose to agree to certain sets of commonalities between their individual lists. So a morality could be adhered to by multiple individuals. ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relativism-vs-objective-morality/274904/250 "2004-12-02T04:36:06Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > No. I have not proposed that any particular moral principle has to be the highest of highs. Odd. I was confirming that what you had posted was what I suspected. I must have been vague, because I don’t think you want to take it back. > [@](#): > > I have only been interested in addressing the general relativist principle… I consider this another debate. Yes, I am aware of this. For what it’s worth, I still don’t think that this is possible with specifying what the “absolute” system would be. Not that this is any reason for you not to try it your way. > [@](#): > > Personally, I believe that the life of the individual is the highest of highs for a rational moral system. I agree. Absent a provable absolute morality, I think it makes sense to conclude that any one person is no more or less likely to be “right” than any other. Which, to me, leads naturally to everyone respecting everyone else’s personal moral beliefs as much as possible. > [@](#): > > But it means that such choices have to be made for the benefit of that individual. If you only look at choices as alterations in reality, you may still be left with moral systems which allow any choices as long as they are restricted to benefiting someone else, for instance. I’m not sure what you mean. First, I am not saying that choices are nothing more than alterations of reality (whatever that would mean); rather, as a first principle if you will, that choosers want to choose and want to see as much of their world as possible reflect those choices. I don’t think this eliminates choices that might help others, but it doesn’t require them either. > [@](#): > > I could, for instance propose a formulation of facism based on increasing choices. I don’t think I agree, unless you choose one person to be more “valuable” than others. Fascism would give one person a great deal of control and opportunities to choose, but at the price of opportunities to those he is oppressing. > [@](#): > > But I think it is evidence that your formulation has not yet led you where you want to go. Oh, I don’t know. I’m fairly pleased with where it has led me, particularly since I didn’t intentionally set out to go anywhere. > [@](#): > > Try and think of the changes as serving a greater purpose. Something all moral agents have. That’s something that is interesting for me to think about wrt myself, but I really can’t imagine that I could point to something and confidently say it was the Greater Purpose for all moral agents. For me, I tend to think that if there IS a Greater Purpose, it is the search for it that is important, even though there is no way of knowing if I ever find it. > [@](#): > > I had a very similar one watching my children pass through that stage of life…As he grew his needs grew. My 6 year-old is starting to get pretty firm ideas of what “fairness” is. Interestingly, she doesn’t think about it much wrt her own behavior, but she is quick to point out when someone else is breaking the rules. This matches what I would expect: She is learning how to use it to “control” other people, but it will take time before she automatically judges her own behavior by the same standard. > [@](#): > > But not merely to change reality. The efforts were to change reality for some purpose or other. If you had to conceptuallize, or generalize all the purposes you saw, what would you call them? In terms of newborns, they seem to me to be creatures of almost pure instinct (with only hints of the personality that will come later). They follow the lead of a very immature brain, which is hungry or tired or curious or frustrated or uncomfortable… In terms of the “absolute” I proposed, I was thinking on a level below this, though. I have no evidence whatsoever that the behavior of one cell, a kangaroo, or a human is anything more than the predictable results of chemical reactions–no more “willed” than the bubbling that happens when you mix vinegar and baking soda. BUT, if it is not, if free will MEANS anything, the question that occurs to me is, why do anything at all? Why care if the brain is sending a “hungry” signal? Why notice your own life at all? Regardless, there certainly seems to be an innate understanding that opportunities to act are limited to being alive. For that reason, it is not surprising to me that most living beings tend to value their lives, health, and physical comfort highly. But in terms of higher purposes or deeper meanings, I don’t think that people are born with any such thing (having known a couple of pure sociopaths, I’m a little cynical about built-in goodness). Instead, I think that people develop these notions over time. I think that the “fairness” that my daughter uses today as a tool to get what she wants will develop over time into empathy and true caring for other people. > [@](#): > > It is a result of the fact that I am trying very hard _not_ to propose any particular morality at all. As a result I have to speak of moral systems and moral principles in very generalized terms. I don’t deny that this is your stated intention. However, I DO think that you have a personal idea of what is the “Highest of the High”, and I think you may be unconsciously favoring it. This is not a criticism, just an observation. I have already said that I don’t think what you are attempting is doable without naming the absolute. I only pointed it out because “working backwards” can definitely put you in danger of justifying instead of proving. > [@](#): > > I would never make the judgement that a person who committed suicide was evil for that reason. I did not mean to imply that you would, but this is a pretty heavily “loaded” issue for many people–and philosophically troublesome if you are theorizing about the importance of life–and it is not surprising that it shows up a lot here. I made a point of addressing it because I don’t think any sort of “absolute” morality could pass muster if it did apply to a suicidal person as well as any other. > [@](#): > > The fact that a theory can be interpreted to explain most things is not the same as saying that a theory explains those things. The difference having to do with predictability and perhaps falsifiability. You are correct and, as I think about it now, I’m not sure that my proposal is in fact falsifiable. I will probably give this some thought, but it may be better for one of the more disciplined philosophers on the board to say it isn’t, or come up with a prediction to test. I have already gotten a good deal of value out of it, just as an interesting way to think about other things, and it just doesn’t really matter that much to me if it is “true” or if it can be proven. If nothing else, it is useful to me. If I’m still batting it around a few years from now, then I’ll think of it as REALLY useful. > [@](#): > > I’m going to take a couple days off. I’ll see you after the weekend. If I can control my addiction to this board that long. 😉 Let’s see…it’s enjoyable, it can take a big chunk out of your day, it creates somewhat of a craving…you must be right. It is an addiction. I can’t believe someone hasn’t outlawed it. Enjoy your, um, vacation. -VM [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relativism-vs-objective-morality/274904.md?page=12)