Moral relativism?

[capefeather]

I see people talking about moral relativism a lot. It can lead to some pretty absurd stuff. I guess my question is... WHY? How is "moral relativism"... or whatever people mean when they say that... relevant at all to what people talk about? It seems to be tied to "liberals" and "Democrats" a lot, but... why?

A quick look at Wikipedia gives three definitions of moral relativism:

Descriptive: The notion that there are different moral standards.

Meta-ethical: The notion that there is no objective moral standard.

Normative: The notion that, if there is no objective moral standard, then we should tolerate each other's moral standards.

The first is obviously true. The second is false; I have to believe that there is an objective moral standard of some sort, because I believe that there is an objective reality, and morality is part of that objective reality because we can test for how much some moral standard is rooted in truth. The third is irrelevant, but I would say that the conclusion can be true without meta-ethical moral relativism being true.

What doesn't follow is that any of this applies in the way people seem to like to use it. The conclusion in the normative definition is the one that probably ought to be the most, erm, "controversial", but it seems as if people mean the meta-ethical definition. Yet, I can't imagine anyone actually literally taking this as true, if they gave it a serious, honest amount of thought. Sure, you could go the solipsist route ("THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE REALITY, MAN"), but then there's no point in anything.

I imagine that what people really mean by "moral relativism" is the notion that there is an objective moral standard, but we just haven't completely uncovered it yet. This is analogous to reality itself: there is an objective reality with universal objective rules, but we just haven't completely uncovered those rules yet (unless you suggest string theory, which is a whole other rabbit hole). Under this notion, it is perfectly consistent to pick a side on a moral issue that Mr. Moral-Fabric-of-America disagrees with. However, since there's nothing inherently bad about this notion (if anything it's probably true), critics must set up the straw man of meta-ethical moral relativism, which leads to inconsistencies and the kinds of hilarious claims that I alluded to in the beginning.

I conclude that the phrase "moral relativism", in its common usage, is merely a cheerleader slogan used by one sports team to bash another sports team. After all, we have to choose what I think is right, not what you think is right. What do you think?

 

[MeteorMiss]

I've read an interesting argument about this here.

I personally think the concept of an "objective morality" is absurd. Regardless of what one person's moral guidelines tell him, disagreement can exist, thus removing the concept of objectivity. We can judge certain concepts of morality to be desirable, and happily live according to this morality, but it is nonetheless subjective.

Incidentally, the link you labeled as "absurd" is also preposterous because (a) Hitler was a Catholic and (b) Many religious texts, including the Bible, specifically advocate the murder of those of other religions.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Kant: Ethics must exist and be the same for all men everywhere and always.

Why? For all the reasons you said. If ethics is something that is not innate, objective, and universal, than the idea of ethics crumbles-- it becomes simply a matter of opinion (or culture, or both).

Problem: It's almost possible to "know" what the innate universal standard of ethics is-- and assuming to know it, and trying to impose it (especially across cultural divides) can lead to great atrocities.

So even as we believe in the existence of an objective moral standard, we have to live giving le-way to differences of opinion-- in order to "hedge" or "estimate" actions falling within some acceptableness from the real objective ethical standard.

At that point, things become grey again-- how much in one way or another are we to accept.

Pinning down ethics is maddeningly difficult and frustrating.

I personally weigh on the side of society that honestly views human nature and human need-- and is made to better accept and forgive human imperfection. I think my view is in the minority though; and it's not an answer to the problem at all really.

But then-- can there ever be a real answer?

 

[cookie]

who the fuck tagged this thread with general relativity

 

[MeteorMiss]

If ethics is something that is not innate, objective, and universal, than the idea of ethics crumbles-- it becomes simply a matter of opinion (or culture, or both).

Isn't this what already happens, though? Different people think that different things are moral. Ethics describe how one "should" act, and this is different across many cultures.

What do you mean when you say that ethics should be "objective"? For example, if I write down "Eating cucumbers is unethical", is this also "objective"? The majority of people would find the usual ethical standard superior to my vegetable-persecuting ethical standard, but in what way is it inherently better?

That having been said, I do think that some ethical and moral standards are more desirable than others. For example, if every conscious being achieves pure bliss for the remainder of his life, one can likely agree that this is a "good" thing. From there, we can begin to build ethical evaluation based on its distance from this ideal. It is still not "objective", however. Would I be morally justified in removing one person's happiness in order to obtain my own? Using an ideal as a basis cannot apply to certain scenarios beneath the ideal.

 

[DrRobotnik]

I don't think that morality is objective, but I do think there should be some social standard for what is morally acceptable.

 

[Pernicious]

people who worry about morality probably should

 

[TyranitarTerror]

I don't think that morality is objective, but I do think there should be some social standard for what is morally acceptable.

The idea of objective morality is a complicated term. The real question the idea raises for me, is who decided this? Who is the person through their whims and ideas created this moral system that I must now adopt as objective? I am not one to be told to internalize another biases and I generally approach anything opinionated with a bag of salt.
What I have found through experience is that if someone creates something, they are trying to gain from it? So what would the creators of an objective moral standard gain from their creation? Though the social standard is a huge necessity, I think that everyone should be aware of it--it can be manipulated and used for immoral reasons.

 

[Chou Toshio]

The idea of objective moral standard cape speaks of, is that regardless of religion, culture, creed, there has to be some innate ethical standard that is the "true" and absolute ethical rules for people. The point with the Nazis is just because a culture exists does not make it ethically acceptable. Letting each culture (or each person) decide what is right and wrong goes against the whole purpose of having right and wrong.

And against the stupidity of the Christian quoted in the article cape mentioned, we don't have to point at the Nazis to illustrate this. How about the pre-civil war South? You know... when we Christian Americans had slavery... Or what about the ancient romans-- slavery and commonly accepted child prostitution and master-student sexual relations. The gladiators; killing for entertainment.

The point is that right and wrong have no meaning if they are something decided upon by human beings. Therefore, right and wrong--if they actually exist-- must exist as absolute and objective things not decided by humans; but defined in the universe. You can choose to think of them being decided by God, or not-- that is irrelevant. The point is that the "true ethical" exists as something beyond human control.

Humans can often "gauge" right and wrong-- we have a sense of it; but we're often off the mark. This is the idea of objective ethics anyway.

 

[Crux]

The problem with moral relativism is two-fold: there are clearly consistent moral practices that occur in cultures that have had little to no interaction or even cultural similarity, which makes it difficult to completely deny some instinctual code of morals that exist for the purposes of survival or w/e (be that physical or emotional / social survival). Also if we accept moral relativism as true, then we lose the ability to criticise any culture and all moral codes become incommensurable. Not only is this objectionable, but I would say that it is also probably wrong. I don't think there is an objective moral standard, however as that assumes some degree of divine intervention which creates problems of its own (is it right because God says that it is right or does God say so because it is right etc. both answers of course denying the principle of moral objectivism.)

I would describe myself as a Moral universalist in this regard as defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

I think there are certain actions that are totally wrong in all circumstances, such as non-consensual torture for the purposes of fun but that outside of those (which generally involve death and / or pain) most moral and ethical dilemmas are up for interpretation. I appreciate utilitarianism as an attempt to codify moral objectivism without the need for God, but I think it fails in that it can't rationalise the impact on humans, emotionally and socially.

 

[mattj]

...right and wrong have no meaning if they are something decided upon by human beings. Therefore, right and wrong--if they actually exist-- must exist as absolute and objective things not decided by humans; but defined in the universe.

I don't see how that follows. "Right and wrong have no meaning if they are decided upon by human beings." Does not lead to "Right and wrong must exist as absolute and objective things."

I have to believe that there is an objective moral standard of some sort, because I believe that there is an objective reality, and morality is part of that objective reality because we can test for how much some moral standard is rooted in truth

What evidence is there that morality is part of our objective reality?

Morality seems a lot like language, or any other created thing. Why do most of us speak English? Because English speakers have been successful. Not because English is the official language of the universe.

 

[Chou Toshio]

^I'm not saying I actually believe that right and wrong are objective truths; I can think of it either way. I'm just explaining the logic; which does make sense to me. (understanding the logic and believing in it are different things as well)

 

[Lavos]

i'm a firm believer in both descriptive and meta-ethical moral relativism simply because if you look in a history textbook or even around the room it's clear that other people hold a different interpretation of morality than you do. in fact there are infinite different interpretations of the so-called "moral standard" that exist (some aspects obviously with more general support than others) but everyone's moral code will invariably differ with someone else's on a very specific level so we can't hold anyone accountable to their actions if we all judge ourselves based on our own moral standard; therefore, we must create a unified moral standard for all of us to abide by (commonly known as law) regardless of the fact that opinions will drastically vary on the validity and general acceptance of such a moral standard.

for example, i just killed a spider on the ceiling. under some other person's moral code this would be an impermissible action, yet under my interpretation of what morality is i'm fine with such an action. however this other person or persons clearly has a different opinion than i do and they're entitled to the expression and enforcement of that opinion in their own realm of control just as much as i am entitled to my own opinion, expression of opinion, and enforcement of opinion in my own realm. and just because their opinion exists and is being expressed doesn't mean i'm under any moral obligation to bend to their own moral standard - unless, of course, my own moral standard stipulates that i must bend to the moral standards of others present over my own. that's where the conundrum lies: since morality is all completely subjective, there's no fine line that can be drawn between the different morals in the world of humans to create an acceptable standard, yet one must be created or it's complete chaos.

as for objective reality, why does it have to exist? there's no evidence for or against it, simply our existence. our perception of our own realities can be drastically different, even. take colorblind people for instance: they perceive the world in a different way than most people, yet is that to say their reality is any less "real" than ours? or blind people, deaf people, autistic people, the list goes on and on. when i drop acid my reality's different too, but that doesn't make it unreal. it's reality, after all. there is no real when it comes to reality, in essence, it's all reality based on our own perceptions of our own realities and that's what creates the collective reality that we believe exists but is in fact simply a manifestation of all individual realities, some of which can coexist, others which cannot. since some can't coexist with others, this creates a situation in which either my individual perception of reality is false (which it cannot be, since it is real to my mind, and therefore real) or none are true and there is no true reality at all. i am highly inclined to believe this second postulation as given the evidence that we can provide simply by existing in our own realities, there is no unifying reality (or at least no pressing need for one, since we all seem to get along just fine in our own little realities, which are actually pretty damn big).

we can't be objective about morality, there cannot be a complete "moral standard" in line with what we perceive as truth because the problem lies in our own perception of said truth or moral standard. since each of our perceptions differ, and since morality and truth itself is rooted in subjective perception of reality anyways, there's no single line we can draw to say "this is the objective moral standard". in the world of human beings with regards to an intangible subject such as the moral standard which we all have differing opinions about, objectivity is impossible since the very subject we are trying to be objective about is in its own nature subjective.

you may give a shit about a unified moral standard, but the cosmos couldn't care less.

 

[Myzozoa]

Well if there are objective moral standards, how do they exist in the universe. It seems that if they exist, and we are to hold ourselves to them, we must have a faculty that allows us to perceive them.

It seems to me that any such objects or bodies would be very strange, since we cannot perceive them directly or even infer them from their interactions with other material bodies.

So when you say the second formulation of moral relativism is false, I don't know how you could show that, logically or even descriptively.

Secondly, what does it mean to call something moral? What does it mean to be a good person? When we use the word 'good' in the sentence 'She is a good person,' what does 'good' mean. It doesn't mean anything that I can understand by examining what the word 'good' means in any other context. When I say 'He is a good runner,' I mean that the person can run a certain number of miles in a certain amount of time. He meets some objective standard of ability to run in order to be 'good.' But the way I use 'good' to describe the woman in the first sentence (She is a good person) does not refer to any such objective standard that I know of.

Let's pretend that I have a book that contains every fact about the universe. It contains every true statement. I am implying, of course, that such a book is possible, though that is not a necessary assumption for this exercise. I think that this book would contain sentences about the beginning of the universe, and it would contain statements about me and everyone else and animals, etc. So one statement would be 'Capefeather made a thread about moral relativism on the Smogon forums' and another would be 'Myzozoa subscribes to moral relativism.' But there would be no value judgements in this book because they don't have any innate logical meaning (the way descriptions of events do), they aren't true (or false), they aren't of the same class as the statements in the book, facts. Value judgements and opinions are inherently subjective, unless you bring supernatural beings into your construction of a morality. The truth table for statements made by God is a straight line of Truths all the way down, every thing Gods say is True is actually true. When god says x is bad, it is bad. So if you don't believe in Gods, then you must accept my thought experiment I think and accept that there is no objective moral standard.

There are of course, ethical sentiments shared across cultures.

Also not going to get into a critique of reason in this thread, but I think I could probably show that even if there were objective standards that we could perceive, their representation and interpretation would still be subjective.\

I may also make a post about how even though there is no objective moral standard, it is still possible to be critical on a moral level of things that happen in societies and cultures that we find distasteful (treatment of women and mentally ill in certain parts of the world or across time).


Also it seems to me your problem lies in your commitment to an objective reality, when there seems to me a mountain of evidence even in sciences that reality is interpretable, also empiricism should warn us against an objective reality if it does nothing else. Also almost every theory of perception there ever was seems to warn against an objective reality.

I think the closest any theory of morality has ever come to describing what makes an action morally praiseworthy or at least permissable is the Doctrine of Double Effect, and it is still very flawed, open to interpretation, and of limited use in many dilemmas.

 

[billymills]

I fully agree with the meta-ethical definition you gave in the original post: there is no objective moral standard.

I would ask anyone who believes in a objective morality to tell me how someone would be able to converge towards it. Crux talking about consistent moral practices is irrelevant: similarities between successful (reproductive) cultures demonstrates practicality of certain moral practices, it does not demonstrate universality.

Another question would be: Do you think there is a complete objective morality in any sense? Is it extensive or is there room for subjective morals on top of it?

I am a fan of an axiomatic approach to morals. If there are a set of 'ideals' or 'goals' or whatever you want to define as desirable (or undesirable), the for each set you could produce an objective morality corresponding to that set.

I think we could each come up with some list of axioms that could reasonably define a moral foundation, and in many cases they would be similar. However, I do not think that they would be universally the same. More importantly, I think there would be the possibility for very large differences between some sets. Without some method of reconciling any two sets of axioms there is no universal objective morality.

An axiom could be "Never kill anyone" or "Support the continuation of the human race." The resultant morality would state what action is preferred (if any) at any given time, given those morals.

Getting back to your original point about ties to Democrats and liberals: I would interpret this as Republicans having a well defined set of axioms (10 Commandments, personal interpretation of the bible) and wholeheartedly believing that these axioms are universal. Democrats and liberals have a looser set of axioms (perhaps an interpretation of the bible that infers or alters a fair portion, or perhaps no written set at all) and have a more difficult time claiming their interpretation is universal when they can't state for certainty what it is. (This would be implying from my own experience: I only have some guesses as to what I would include axiomatically.) This would be on a person by person basis, I'm not talking about a group-based morality nor similarities within the group.

Also this isn't really general relativity. It's only relating to the special case of morals. Maybe 'special relativity' would be more apt as a tag.

 

[Eggbert]

I don't think it matters whether there is an absolute morality or not. What does matter is the morality applied to the benefit and helping of other humans and life. If we follow an axiom like in the concept mentioned above for this cause we would act towards what benefits everyone and ultimately ourselves. There isn't a specific "right" or "wrong" but some decisions can be "more" right or wrong than others. For example, there is a poisonous spider hanging near a baby. Using this principle, if you let the spider bite the baby, you would be making a worse choice than killing the spider, which in turn would be worse than moving the baby away from the spider.

 

[capefeather]

i'm a firm believer in both descriptive and meta-ethical moral relativism simply because if you look in a history textbook or even around the room it's clear that other people hold a different interpretation of morality than you do.

So basically you believe descriptive and meta-ethical moral relativism because descriptive moral relativism is true?

Morality isn't some mystical non-thing that exists outside the universe. It's an end result of our thoughts, and our thoughts are governed by biology (or psychology or whatever). We can and do conduct experiments on such matters. It happens that we tend to agree on a lot of things, just as we tend to have ten fingers. I don't think that very many people would agree that it is moral to eat babies. Those who might, if they exist, are unlikely to be able to pass that belief on very far.

I suspect most are disagreeing more about the uniqueness of objective moral standards than about the existence of an objective moral standard. I'm not really sure what to think about this, but in practice, some kind of decision has to be made, even if that means segregating the people who think we should eat babies from the people who don't.

as for objective reality, why does it have to exist? there's no evidence for or against it, simply our existence.

That's the thing. In order for the concept of evidence to make sense, we'd have to invoke an objective reality from which objective evidence arises. This doesn't mean an objective perception of reality. Physical models of reality are not dependent on perspective. That's the whole point of scientific observation. And if you're going to take the solipsist view, then you can't make any claims at all. You can't even trust your own logic. So... have fun being useless!

The tools we use to perceive reality may change our perception of reality, but they don't change reality itself. When you drop acid, you change your brain chemistry, effectively changing the tools you're using to observe your surroundings, but that doesn't actually change your surroundings (other than minor things like the fact that there's less acid in your vicinity). To suggest that would be pretty silly to anyone who doesn't take the solipsist view. Similarly, just because I tagged this thread with "general relativity", that doesn't somehow change the contents of the thread to be about general relativity (though I suppose it could be invoked as an example). More likely, it just means I was being silly with the forum tag system.

What I worry about is when people complicate notions like "truth" and "goodness" in order to provide a convenient excuse to hold onto, and then impose and/or pass on, arbitrary beliefs. In the magical realm of the metaphysical mind, where everything is subjective and no evidence matters, anyone can justify anything. I tend to be confident that truth will eventually win over lies, but I can only wait a few decades for that to happen for any given instance.

 

[billymills]

Morality isn't some mystical non-thing that exists outside the universe. It's an end result of our thoughts, and our thoughts are governed by biology (or psychology or whatever). We can and do conduct experiments on such matters. It happens that we tend to agree on a lot of things, just as we tend to have ten fingers. I don't think that very many people would agree that it is moral to eat babies. Those who might, if they exist, are unlikely to be able to pass that belief on very far.

So you're arguing evolutionary morality? I would agree that there is some objective morality associated with being the most successful reproducing species. However, that is a very specific morality. There would also be a very specific morality associated with being the most successful reproducing species that doesn't allow theft, or rape, or murder. The results of those sets could be considerably different. Which one is the 'objective' morality.

I suspect most are disagreeing more about the uniqueness of objective moral standards than about the existence of an objective moral standard. I'm not really sure what to think about this, but in practice, some kind of decision has to be made, even if that means segregating the people who think we should eat babies from the people who don't.

I completely disagree with universality. I have no problem with practical morality or objective morality relating to some specific set of principles (though I do have a problem with completeness).

The tools we use to perceive reality may change our perception of reality, but they don't change reality itself. When you drop acid, you change your brain chemistry, effectively changing the tools you're using to observe your surroundings, but that doesn't actually change your surroundings (other than minor things like the fact that there's less acid in your vicinity). To suggest that would be pretty silly to anyone who doesn't take the solipsist view. Similarly, just because I tagged this thread with "general relativity", that doesn't somehow change the contents of the thread to be about general relativity (though I suppose it could be invoked as an example). More likely, it just means I was being silly with the forum tag system.

Copenhagen interpretation says pretty much the opposite. Measuring a system does change the state of the system. I don't really see how you can derive an objective reality from this.

 

[capefeather]

Copenhagen interpretation is accounted for with my mention of "the fact that there's less acid in your vicinity". But seeing an illusion doesn't make it real.

I'm pretty sure that many actions are amoral, which would result in different lifestyles and even different cultures. However, some things remain the same. We believe some collection of things, and these beliefs can, in principle, be explained. Even the immorality of rape, theft and murder are themselves dependent on these beliefs. IRL, "theft" and "murder" at least aren't even considered completely immoral, at least if you define "theft" as one party taking something from another, and "murder" as one party taking another's life.

I suppose it's possible for [a] human society to adopt the belief that something like rape is not immoral. I highly doubt that that could actually happen, though.

 

[mattj]

Morality isn't some mystical non-thing that exists outside the universe. It's an end result of our thoughts, and our thoughts are governed by biology (or psychology or whatever). We can and do conduct experiments on such matters. It happens that we tend to agree on a lot of things, just as we tend to have ten fingers.

This same line of thought could be applied to language, which no one argues is objective or universal. If our thoughts and biology can produce non objective things like language, culture, music, etc, why would the fact that morality emanates from our biology necessitate that morality is objective?

 

[billymills]

Copenhagen interpretation is accounted for with my mention of "the fact that there's less acid in your vicinity". But seeing an illusion doesn't make it real.

What? Can you explain how any of this relates to what I previously said?

I'm pretty sure that many actions are amoral, which would result in different lifestyles and even different cultures. However, some things remain the same. We believe some collection of things, and these beliefs can, in principle, be explained. Even the immorality of rape, theft and murder are themselves dependent on these beliefs. IRL, "theft" and "murder" at least aren't even considered completely immoral, at least if you define "theft" as one party taking something from another, and "murder" as one party taking another's life.

I'm reading this as 'there are differences and similarities, but the differences are irrelevant.' Would you agree that that is what you are saying?

Theft and murder aren't considered completely immoral according to who? You? Society? I'm sure I could find a billion people who disagree with this.

I suppose it's possible for [a] human society to adopt the belief that something like rape is not immoral. I highly doubt that that could actually happen, though.

Admitting that means you admit rape is not objectively immoral. Are you willing to make that claim?

 

[Myzozoa]

If there is an objective morality, what does it look like when you violate that morality. For example when you violate an objective law of nature, such as Newton's law regarding the conservation of matter, it is a contradiction of our understanding of how the universe functions similar to somehow finding that 2+2=5 is a contradiction. I don't think you could ever find such a stark contradiction in ethics. No human action is ever a contradiction to the laws of nature and to show that there is a an objective moral standard (which must be a law of the universe) would be to say that contradicting it would be a violation of our understanding of the universe.

 

[MeteorMiss]

What? Can you explain how any of this relates to what I previously said?

I'm reading this as 'there are differences and similarities, but the differences are irrelevant.' Would you agree that that is what you are saying?

Theft and murder aren't considered completely immoral according to who? You? Society? I'm sure I could find a billion people who disagree with this.

Admitting that means you admit rape is not objectively immoral. Are you willing to make that claim?

I think that saying "objectively" immoral is a misnomer, yes. For example, a solipsist might think that if he became happy by raping someone, it was a justifiable act. (I certainly don't share this view, by the way.) However, to say that morality is "objective" is to disregard all other possible perceptions of morality.

 

[capefeather]

This same line of thought could be applied to language, which no one argues is objective or universal. If our thoughts and biology can produce non objective things like language, culture, music, etc, why would the fact that morality emanates from our biology necessitate that morality is objective?

There are universal "languages" that we use, and moreover, there are things we can say generally about languages. Languages also evolve to fit various objective needs better, just as our moral systems evolve to fit various objective purposes better.

I can't stress this enough. It's not a specific moral system that we conceive of right now that is objectively the most correct one. Such a system may very well be inconceivable to us, just as a lot of things about the world we take for granted now would be inconceivable to Newton, and you can forget about Aristotle. I kind of think that when Chou Toshio quoted Kant, that was when people started taking my position completely the wrong way. I don't give two shits about Kant.

What? Can you explain how any of this relates to what I previously said?

I'm reading this as 'there are differences and similarities, but the differences are irrelevant.' Would you agree that that is what you are saying?

Theft and murder aren't considered completely immoral according to who? You? Society? I'm sure I could find a billion people who disagree with this.

Admitting that means you admit rape is not objectively immoral. Are you willing to make that claim?

When we make a measurement, we can be aware of how the measurement affects the measured thing, and make the appropriate corrections. When I see what looks like an oasis in a desert, I can use my knowledge of optics to conclude that there probably isn't an oasis where it looks like there is. These corrections are the entire basis of indirect observations in science. It makes up so much of what we know about the very small and the very far away. The difference between my illusion and the stoner's illusion is that the stoner isn't correcting for the effects of the drugs.

Ultimately, I think you're talking about our observation of the universe. Our observation of the universe is highly dependent on our limited ways of visualizing and communicating ideas. I'm talking about the universe itself as a whole. The universe itself as a whole is not something that everyday language is designed to describe. The universe as a whole is not dependent on notions like "time" or "space"; in fact it doesn't even make sense to use time- or space-centric language to describe the universe as a whole. Those things are mere components of the universe, if even that.

It's like how there are people who are not unambiguously male or unambiguously female, but everyday language makes it really difficult to even refer to them conveniently. Our languages are largely relics of the past, and an ideal language would be able to get rid of those flaws.

I'm talking about morality in the same way. I'm talking about morality itself as a whole, moving outside of everything that we have established over time, and outside of illusions that our very language produces. What do we do if someone makes an immoral decision? That question is itself one that can be informed by morality as a whole. Morality as a whole can manifest in (seemingly) different ways in different situations, just as the law of gravitation can manifest in (seemingly) different ways whether you're applying them to the stars in the sky or objects closer to the ground. With this in mind, I suspect that what you're referring to as "meta-ethical MR" is, if taken to its logical, most abstract conclusion, actually my definition after all.

Remember, I defined theft as one party taking something from another. Suppose Party 1 is the government taking some percentage of Party 2's income. Is this "theft" immoral? (I'm not saying it's necessarily moral; that, I presume, depends on how the government spends what it "stole".) Similarly, suppose Party 1 is a terminally ill patient who wishes to die with dignity, and Party 2 is a doctor who fulfills that wish. By the way I've defined murder, Party 2 definitely murdered Party 1. Is this immoral? More importantly, are your answers to these questions dependent on language or on reality?

All I meant with the rape comment is that I can conceive of a scenario where it isn't immoral. I can also conceive of a scenario where all life simply materialized out of thin air and it all happened to look like some kind of evolutionary process occurred. Keeping in mind that I'm not omniscient and I don't know how much of what I think now will be considered nonsense in the future, if evidence in the future showed that all life DID materialize out of thin air, then who am I to reject that? In practice, though, I'm very certain that rape is immoral, just as I'm very certain that evolutionary theory is as accurate as anyone realistically cares.

 

[billymills]

When we make a measurement, we can be aware of how the measurement affects the measured thing, and make the appropriate corrections. When I see what looks like an oasis in a desert, I can use my knowledge of optics to conclude that there probably isn't an oasis where it looks like there is. These corrections are the entire basis of indirect observations in science. It makes up so much of what we know about the very small and the very far away. The difference between my illusion and the stoner's illusion is that the stoner isn't correcting for the effects of the drugs.

Copenhagen Interpretation

Ultimately, I think you're talking about our observation of the universe. Our observation of the universe is highly dependent on our limited ways of visualizing and communicating ideas. I'm talking about the universe itself as a whole. The universe itself as a whole is not something that everyday language is designed to describe.

Then what the hell are you trying to do?

I'm talking about morality in the same way. I'm talking about morality itself as a whole, moving outside of everything that we have established over time, and outside of illusions that our very language produces. What do we do if someone makes an immoral decision? That question is itself one that can be informed by morality as a whole. Morality as a whole can manifest in (seemingly) different ways in different situations, just as the law of gravitation can manifest in (seemingly) different ways whether you're applying them to the stars in the sky or objects closer to the ground. With this in mind, I suspect that what you're referring to as "meta-ethical MR" is, if taken to its logical, most abstract conclusion, actually my definition after all.

The only time I have mentioned meta-ethical in any of my posts is in the phrase:

I fully agree with the meta-ethical definition you gave in the original post: there is no objective moral standard.

If you think we are arguing definitions at any point here please let me know. But as far as I can tell we agree on that definition.

More importantly, are your answers to these questions dependent on language or on reality?

I sure fucking hope so? Do you want some sort of morality that does not depend on reality?


I tried to respond to as much of your post as possible, but huge portions of it made absolutely no sense.