Taking a stand on moral relativism

[godzillatemple]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
By recognizing an absolute and unchanging standard that shapes all ethical systems.

… while at the same time recognizing that the same actions can be considered “moral” or “immoral” relative[sup]*[/sup] to the circumstances of a particular society (i.e., why the action was performed), right?

Barry

[sup]*[/sup]Sorry, I know I said I wasn’t going to discuss this anymore, but I couldn’t resist. I tried to resist, mind you, but in the end it was to no avail…

But come on – now you’re admitting that there are multiple “ethical systems,” and that these different systems can all be considered equally valid as long as they are all “shaped” by the same “absolute and unchanging standard.” The fact that you are positing some amorphous underlying “absolute and unchanging standard” does change the fact that this standard has different applications relative to different societies and that multiple ethical systems can validly coexist. It’s not enough to judge a ethical system solely by examining the alleged “absolute and unchanging standard” provided by evloution. Instead, you have to examine the particular circumstances of each society and then then judge whether the “absolute and unchanging standard” has been correctly applied to those circumstances or not. Your undefined “absolute and unchanging standard” would indeed provide a basis for judging the validity of each society’s ethical system (assuming such a standard actually exists), but that judgement would still need to be made relative to each society’s particular circumstances. All you’ve done is provided a justification for moral relativism with an appeal to an “absolute and unchanging standard” that can shape different moral systems. In short, the “absolute and unchanging standard” may be absolute, but the application of that standard is relative.

Whether a theory that proposes an absolute standard that is applied relatively is one of “moral absolutism” or “moral relativism” depends, I suppose, on how one chooses to define the terms “moral absolutism” and “moral relativism.” I submit that your definition is not one that is shared by most people who talk about “moral absolutism” (see, for example, the comments by elfkin477 above), but I suppose people have always been free to redefine words as they see fit. It does make conversations a bit awkward, however. Or, to put it another way, may I mambo dog face to the banana patch?

[erislover]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
There is no more priviledged method of evaluation than the way the universe changes over time.

For any time t is there a privileged method of evaluation?

Isn’t it obvious that there must be strategies that work better than others?

Given a method of valuating strategies. Is there a single method to ascribe value to strategies?

As long as there’s some difference in the effectiveness of strategies, some won’t work as well, and some will be better.

WRT morality, once we’ve defined “better”. Is there an absolute “best”?

By recognizing an absolute and unchanging standard that shapes all ethical systems.

Go on.

PS Hi Spiritus!

[godzillatemple]

Sorry for the double post. Damn hamsters…

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi *
**Game Theory is a useful model for morality only if we start by assuming that the goal of morality it to win the game being modeled.

**

There is no such goal. Organisms that don’t have that goal generally do not come to our attention; as a result, the “validity” of the goal arises from selection itself.

**Among the several fallacies involved in applying evolutionary analysis to morality are: the unspoken utilitarian assumption (“fitness” as moral measure)

** If we instead assume that “correctness” is whatever people believe it is, we quickly find that certain beliefs cease being held; thus, they are not correct.

If we are presented with a poplulation of individuals, some of which believe they can jump off of cliffs and fly, we will quickly find that the population shifts to the individuals who don’t believe this.

**the incompleteness of the selection set (can we assume that every possible moral system has been tried in every applicable human context? If not, then what can evolution tell us about the untried systems?)

** Why, I guess we’d just have to try them and find out.

I aways find it useful to note when people pepper their discussions of evolution with reference to “memes” and “teddy bears” and “sand”. It is a prevalent sign of someone departing from conventional science and entering the zone of rampant speculation.

Perhaps you’re unaware of the research done on the morphology of teddy bears. It’s quite conventional (at least in the technical and procedural sense).

[TVAA]

Originally posted by godzillatemple *
**… while at the same time recognizing that the same actions can be considered “moral” or “immoral” relative[sup][/sup] to the circumstances of a particular society (i.e., why the action was performed), right?

** Possibly. It may indeed be the case that some things are inherently “wrong” regardless of the other circumstances surrounding it. Or maybe not.

We’re unlikely to ever see examples of such things on a wide scale, at least not commonly.

**But come on – now you’re admitting that there are multiple “ethical systems,” and that these different systems can all be considered equally valid as long as they are all “shaped” by the same “absolute and unchanging standard.”

** Of course not. Evolutionary theory doesn’t lead to the conclusion that every possible physiology is equally valid; quite the opposite. Evolution takes places because it’s NOT the case that they’re all equally valid. Some are inherently contradictory (incompatible with life), while some are better than others.

**The fact that you are positing some amorphous underlying “absolute and unchanging standard” does change the fact that this standard has different applications relative to different societies and that multiple ethical systems can validly coexist.

** No way.

It’s like the distinction between the laws of physics and our theories about the laws of physics. At any given time, there may be multiple sets of theories that appear equally valid according to the available data. Does this mean that the laws of physics change over time?

**It’s not enough to judge a ethical system solely by examining the alleged “absolute and unchanging standard” provided by evloution. Instead, you have to examine the particular circumstances of each society and then then judge whether the “absolute and unchanging standard” has been correctly applied to those circumstances or not. Your undefined “absolute and unchanging standard” would indeed provide a basis for judging the validity of each society’s ethical system (assuming such a standard actually exists), but that judgement would still need to be made relative to each society’s particular circumstances.

** This is pointless.

The distinction you’re making is an utterly arbitrary one. Both your “moral absolutists” and your “moral relativists” make moral judgments based on whether a particular sort of event took place. The only difference is that the “absolutists” define the events differently than the “relativists”.

Killing one baby is a different event than killing some other baby. Killing a particular baby in a certain way is a different event than killing that baby in a different way. Depending on which aspects of the event we consider vital, we can come up with definitions of morality or immorality of arbitrary complexity. The difference is in the way we examine the concepts.

[quote]
**In short, the “absolute and unchanging standard” may be absolute, but the application of that standard is relative. Relative to what? To the things the standard is being applied to? OF COURSE! Applications are always to something.

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**For any time t is there a privileged method of evaluation?

** Does the universe exist at time t?

Given a method of valuating strategies. Is there a single method to ascribe value to strategies?

Sure. See if a strategy leads to continued existence over infinite time.

WRT morality, once we’ve defined “better”. Is there an absolute “best”?

Logically indeterminable. There may or may not be – the only way to find out would be to observe the entire universe over its entire existence, which is impossible for anything inside that universe.

Go on.

In what way is it meaningful to say that there should continue to be particular patterns in the universe? For example, what’s the point of cicadas? They live underground for years as grubs, sucking fluids from tree roots, then come above ground for a short period to mate, lay eggs which will turn into more grubs, and die. From a human perspective, their lives are utterly pointless. They accomplish nothing other than to continue to exist.

But when we analyze everything else in the universe, we can quickly see that none of it has any point either – even our own lives. Why do we do things? To accomplish our goals. What are the points of our goals? To satisfy our desires? What’s the point of our desires? They cause us to continue to exist (at least, that’s what they’re supposed to do in theory). What’s the point of existence?

There isn’t one. A “point” can only exist relative to something else, and there’s nothing that everything can be in context with.

[godzillatemple]

Killing one baby is a different event than killing some other baby

Relatively speaking, I suppose that could be true. To an absolute moralist, however, killing a baby is killing a baby, and the act is either right or wrong.

Once again, in case you missed it the first 10 or so times, absolute moralism is the belief that actions are inherently “good” or “bad” regardless of the underlying reasons or circumstances. I realize you are looking for subtle distinctions that would allow you to say that “this” killing of a baby is funadamentally different from “that” killing of a baby, and that therefore it makes no sense to compare the two actions. That’s your right, but it’s a subtlety that you alone seem to be making among all the people I’ve ever met that consider themselves moral absolutists (and believe me, I’ve met my share).

Moral absolutism states that acts are inherently good or bad regardless of the underlying reasons and surrounding circumstances. You, however, claim that two identical acts are actually different because they have different underlying reasons and surrounding circumstances.

I’ve tried to offer an olive branch, TVAA, by conceding that a system of relative morality can conceivably be based on “absolute and unchanging standards” (even though you seem to be unable to state exactly what those standards actually are), instead of rational and logical principles. Cannot you do the same and concede that your concept of an evolution-based absolute morality can have different applications relative to different societies, since different societies have different circumstances, needs, etc.? Is it really that difficult?

Barry

[erislover]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
Sure. See if a strategy leads to continued existence over infinite time.

Which doesn’t answer [one of] relativism’s challenge[s**] that there are multiple strategies that will meet this goal.

Logically indeterminable. There may or may not be [an absolute “best”]…

Now we’re getting somewhere.

In what way is it meaningful to say that there should continue to be particular patterns in the universe? [etc]

I’m not sure how this expands upon the passage I wanted you to elaborate on, which was “By recognizing an absolute and unchanging standard that shapes all ethical systems.”

Why choose this standard? Does this “absolute and unchanging standard” guarantee unique ethical systems? Points you might want to not gloss over if your goal is to undermine relativism.

[erislover]

Or rather, does it guarantee a unique ethical system, ie privileged and definitively “right”.

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by godzillatemple *
**Relatively speaking, I suppose that could be true. To an absolute moralist, however, killing a baby is killing a baby, and the act is either right or wrong.

** Killing a baby because it has a horrifying medical condition that will eventually kill it anyway after months of suffering is killing a baby because it has a horrifying medical condition that will eventually kill it anyway after months of suffering, and the act is either right or wrong. It doesn’t matter what the particular other properties of the baby are, or who the parents are, or what the specific disease is. Only the aforementioned aspects of the situation matter.

So: is this an absolute position, or not?

absolute moralism is the belief that actions are inherently “good” or “bad” regardless of the underlying reasons or circumstances.

But the reasons and circumstances are as much a part of the situation as anything else.

Killing a doomed-to-tortuous-death baby might be considered right even if the person doing it did so only because he wanted to kill a baby. The principle involved would say that a certain action, defined by certain criteria, is right.

Killing a doomed-to-tortuous-death baby might be considered wrong because the person doing is did so only because he wanted to kill a baby. The principle involved would that that a certain action, defined by certain criteria, is wrong.

What’s the difference again?

I realize you are looking for subtle distinctions that would allow you to say that “this” killing of a baby is funadamentally different from “that” killing of a baby, and that therefore it makes no sense to compare the two actions. That’s your right, but it’s a subtlety that you alone seem to be making among all the people I’ve ever met that consider themselves moral absolutists (and believe me, I’ve met my share).

How utterly strange.

Everyone believes in absolutes; it’s just that the criteria that define those absolutes can vary.

**Moral absolutism states that acts are inherently good or bad regardless of the underlying reasons and surrounding circumstances. You, however, claim that two identical acts are actually different because they have different underlying reasons and surrounding circumstances.

** But the acts aren’t identical.

Both fit into a specific category (say, killing a baby). But killing a baby that would die a terrible death also fits into a specific category. It’s more specific in some ways, granted.

Are you claiming that moral absolutists are defined by making moral judgments at a very unspecific level? If so, what about people who would make judgments at even less specific levels? Are they more absolute, less absolute, or equally absolute?

**Cannot you do the same and concede that your concept of an evolution-based absolute morality can have different applications relative to different societies, since different societies have different circumstances, needs, etc.? Is it really that difficult?

** There’s only one set of rules involved, isn’t there?

So there can be different manifestations of the same set of rules, just as a snowflake is as much a manifestation of the laws of physics as the core of a supernova.

Here, take this barrel of pickled olives as a peace offering. [thud]

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by erislover *
Which doesn’t answer [one of] relativism’s challenge[s**] that there are multiple strategies that will meet this goal.

But are there?

**Now we’re getting somewhere.

** In an infinitely large set of numbers, is there a number larger than all others? Indeterminate – without knowing what the numbers are, we can’t tell.

**Why choose this standard? Does this “absolute and unchanging standard” guarantee unique ethical systems? Points you might want to not gloss over if your goal is to undermine relativism. **

But we don’t choose this standard, any more than we choose the laws of physics. Why should we choose to believe that the mass of an object increases as its speed increases?

“Unique”? In what way?

If we recognize that certain strategies are equally good at achieving a goal, and we accept them all as valid, isn’t that a single, unifying strategy? The one right way is recognizing that there’re multiple ways to do something?

[Trinopus]

re raindrops: nope.

[godzillatemple]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
Killing a baby because it has a horrifying medical condition that will eventually kill it anyway after months of suffering is killing a baby because it has a horrifying medical condition that will eventually kill it anyway after months of suffering, and the act is either right or wrong. It doesn’t matter what the particular other properties of the baby are, or who the parents are, or what the specific disease is. Only the aforementioned aspects of the situation matter.

Now you’re coming up with extreme examples, whereas before you simply said that “[k]illing one baby is a different event than killing some other baby.” Aside from the fact that most moral absolutists would claim that killing a baby, even in the absurdly extreme situation you described, is still immoral, what about simply killing a baby because the baby is unwanted? And lets say that in each case the baby is killed in exactly the same way, say, by tossing it in a trash can and letting it starve to death. Does your evolutionary-based theory of “absolute morality” allow that this act (killing a baby because it is unwanted by throwing it in a trash can ) can be considered “moral” in one society and “immoral” in another society? As a moral relativist, I would say the answer is yes, if you look at the relative conditions within each society. Perhaps, for example, one society is suffering from rampant starvation and simply cannot afford to feed another child. In that society, the described act could be considered “moral” (or, at the very least, not "immoral). In another society, however, where food is plentiful, the same act would be considered “immoral.”

But the reasons and circumstances are as much a part of the situation as anything else.

So you keep saying. However, that’s not what the theory of “moral absolutism” states.

Everyone believes in absolutes; it’s just that the criteria that define those absolutes can vary.

What a strange thing to say.

There’s only one set of rules involved, isn’t there?

I have no idea. Can you tell me what these rules are? You seem to keep waffling between “an absolute and unchanging standard that shapes all ethical systems” and “only one set of rules.” In the former instance, a single standard can be applied to different situations to generate different sets of rules (i.e., ethical systems), and defining the term “different situations” in a very loose manner (as you seem wont to do) results in de facto moral relativism. Are you, in fact, defining an “ethical system” as a “set of rules”? Or are you talking about the set of rules that are (or can be, or should be) used to shape ethical systems? If the latter, I have to once again ask what these rules actually are?

So there can be different manifestations of the same set of rules, just as a snowflake is as much a manifestation of the laws of physics as the core of a supernova.

Once again, you are taking extreme examples and using that to argue that similar examples can therefore not be validly compared.

**Here, take this barrel of pickled olives as a peace offering. [thud] **

Sorry, but I prefer black olives.

Of course, there’s also the general question as to whether this whole notion of evolutionary based absolute morality, even if true, is of any practical use whatsoever. If the “absolute and unchanging standard” is unknown, and if the only way to tell if a particular ethic system is based on that “absolute and unchanging standard” is to see if that system “leads to continued existence over infinite time,” then what’s the point?

Why talk about an “absolute morality” if that morality cannot practically be used to make value judgments?

But I digress…

If we recognize that certain strategies are equally good at achieving a goal, and we accept them all as valid, isn’t that a single, unifying strategy? The one right way is recognizing that there’re multiple ways to do something?

Spoken like a true moral relativist, thank you.

[godzillatemple]

*Originally posted by Trinopus *
**re raindrops: nope. **

Well, it depends on how you choose to define “raindrops” and “tear-shaped,” apparently…

[erislover]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
But are there [multiple strategies that will meet the goal of continued existence over infinite time]?

This is outside the scope of my knowledge. By observation, there are a number of strategies for survival which are all currently successful and, by inspection of the fossil record, have been so for some time. So, if we qualify the question to the point where it can be answered: yes. Now: why have we equated “good” with “survival”? Are other equivocations possible? Is there a single best way to select among them?

If we recognize that certain strategies are equally good at achieving a goal, and we accept them all as valid, isn’t that a single, unifying strategy? [emphasis added by erl]

OBVIOUSLY it is, or it is at least indicative of one. The one that did the “equally good” and “all valid” value descriptions.[ol][]Is that the only system capable of judgment?[]If not, do we have a way to compare systems without rejecting our negative answer to “1”?[/ol]

[TVAA]

Huh. http://www.suite101.com/print_article.cfm/13646/91232

I was aware that the teardrop description wasn’t quite literally accurate, but I was unaware that a more accurate description was “hamburger-bun-shaped”.

The irony (from my position, at least) is that lots of falling substances do form teardrop shapes. Like molten glass falling through water, for example.

[sigh] Well, I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll be wrong again…

[TVAA]

Trinopus, what in the worlds would I do without you? (Besides continue to claim that raindrops are tearshaped, of course…)

godzillatemple: Yes, they’re more extreme, but they’re mostly just less generic.

Why wouldn’t it be immoral because the babies were forced to die of exposure instead of simply cutting their throats? And who says that it wouldn’t be “right” to keep the baby and have everyone starve?

It seems to me that you agree with my claim, at least to a degree.

The “theory of moral absolutism” you keep referring to is utterly without merit, as far as I can determine. It’s not based on absolutes so much as generalities, and it denies the possibility of moral codes that examine other generalities.

Absolutes do not need to be simple statements. The moral absolutists you describe seem to be extremely concerned with the simplicity of the absolutes, not their essential nature.

How similar do conditions have to be? Is killing a fly as immoral as killing a baby? They’re both examples of killing, and killing is killing.

[Fatwater_Fewl]

Umm,

I observe that certain kinds of altruism combined with pragmatism seem to be very successful, but I’m not advocating any particular moral code.

Well, that’s not quite true: I suppose I’m advocating the idea that we should ultimately decide moral questions by allowing evolutionary selection to take place, and that we should encourage the conditions necessary for such selection. What evolution produces is up to the universe.

This …

There is no more priviledged method of evaluation than the way the universe changes over time.

Which is most valid: the opinions of engineers or the laws of physics?

… along with this … leads me to observe and to ask these things:

We exist as a result of evolution which seems to be a function of the physical laws of the universe.

Evolution provides what limits exist on what we (humanity) can or cannot be.

What we can or cannot be provides what limits exist on what we will or will not be [or are, or are not].

What we will be/are or will not be/aren’t is dependant upon many things: heredity, diet, environment, education, lifestyle, opportunity etc.

Of these things, the only one over which we have no control no choice is heredity, our physical parentage (though we can exert some control over the physical parentage of our children, should we choose to reproduce).

What you seem to be saying in this thread is that there is an absolute morality which exists at at least one remove from choice. You seem to be equating evolution itself with that absolute morality. And it seems to be that you might as well – and perhaps you do – argue that that absolute morality exists at a further remove from choice: in the physical laws of the universe (in what can and cannot be).

This seems to me to be the same as saying that the existence of coffee determines whether or not I can have cream and sugar (or gasoline) in a cup of coffee. (It’s true; if coffee did not exist, the question of whether or not I could have cream or sugar in it would not exist.) However, whether or not I can have cream and sugar (or gasoline) has nothing to with whether or not I prefer to have cream and sugar (or gasoline) in my damn coffee.

Yes, evolution makes the concept of morality possible. Perhaps the development of a species (cursed or blessed with) intelligence and self-awareness even makes the concept of morality necessary. But, in all your talk of evolution, aren’t you forgetting something?

Adaptability, perhaps?

By recognizing an absolute and unchanging standard that shapes all ethical systems.

It is in the adaptability of moral systems (personal or societal) to new information, I think, that the strength of erl’s argument for moral relativism resides. And it is in the potential for conscious choice, I think, that morality itself resides. In other words, once awareness and choice are removed from the equation morality cannot exist.

Yes, evolution and the physical laws of the universe exist; they make it possible for humanity and our general and particular concepts of morality to exist, but they are not those concepts anymore than apple trees are apple flavoured chewing tobacco.

It also emphasizes that ethical and moral questions must ultimately be resolved by experimentation. (Pure thought would work, but it needs data as raw materials, and data is acquired through observation and experiment.)

Isn’t this what we’ve been doing all our lives? And what philosophers have been doing for centuries?

Perhaps next year or next century someone will have an insight that makes it all clear, but for now it seems that many moral and ethical systems exist and, while one person may be able to come up with the one best system for their own life, it does not appear, given what we know now, that such a system can be found for the whole of humanity.

Sorry, it’s a buffet, not a fixed menu. You pays your money, you takes your chances.

Spiritus said:

Rather than cut in on the dance others are enjoying I will simply make a couple of observations of my own.

Hey man! you can have my spot. I don’t have the stamina for the long waltzes (not to mention being arrhythmic).

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**Now: why have we equated “good” with “survival”? Are other equivocations possible? Is there a single best way to select among them?

** If we acknowledge that people usually vary in their beliefs about what “good” is, we can quickly see that many such beliefs, although theoretically possible, are not held. Why is this the case?

At least some of the time, it’s because those definitions of “good” cause people to die off or somehow not pass on those definitions as effectively. As time passes, the nature of the defintions we have to worry ourselves about changes.

In the ethics simulations, all of the little organisms had different ideas about the best way to treat others. Some strategies just don’t work well – for example, creatures that were always cooperative would be utterly decimated by other creatures willing to exploit their good will. Their ideas about what “good” was quickly ceased existing within the simulation.

[dakravel]

I always thought raindrops were donut shaped, but TVAA’s article and a little bit of googling on my own has confirmed they are ‘hamburger bun shaped’, and apparently, the largest ones can be ‘parachute shaped’.

I think that reading up on moral absolutism and moral relativism might help everyone make sure we’re all talking about the same thing.

Just trying to help, it’s a very interesting discussion, and as yet I don’t have much to say on it.