Moral Relativism vs Moral Discussion

Author: Lernaean ,

Posts

Total: 36
Lernaean
Lernaean's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 5
0
0
3
Lernaean's avatar
Lernaean
0
0
3
For the sake of this discussion, suppose you are a moral relativist. That is, suppose you don't believe that any moral laws, known or unknown, are true, correct, objective, or whatever label you prefer. 

With that in mind, I've had some trouble recently reconciling my moral relativism with my ability to discuss moral issues with other people. I have a personal moral code that I try to live by, but I fully believe that it entirely subjective and no more "correct" than anyone else's. I frequently hear other people talking about moral issues and their views on them, and I often find that I disagree with them. I want to have a conversation with them about it but I don't know how to properly do it.

How is one supposed to have a meaningful discussion about right and wrong with someone else if you fundamentally don't believe right and wrong objectively exist? It feels like I am essentially saying, "You should believe in my moral rules because I want you to." One can make these arguments from a pragmatic or compassionate or whatever standpoint, but valuing those standpoints still seems entirely arbitrary. 

Has anyone else struggled with this issue or otherwise see a way of dealing with it? I enjoy having moral discussions with others, but I don't like feeling like some sort of hypocrite or fraud.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
I don't know how to properly do it.
"I don't know how to do it properly."

It's all a bit to me vague... Perhaps you could flesh out a typical example.

Lernaean
Lernaean's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 5
0
0
3
Lernaean's avatar
Lernaean
0
0
3
--> @keithprosser
I will give a concrete example. 

I dislike it when people litter, to a significant degree. When I see a friend litter, I want to tell them that they shouldn't litter. But when you use words like should and shouldn't, you're usually making an appeal to morality and this is where the trouble starts. 

In my worldview, there are no absolute moral rules. Littering is neither objectively right or wrong -- it simply doesn't have an absolute moral designation. Thus, I find it very difficult to tell someone they shouldn't litter because I don't actually believe that they shouldn't in an objective sense. I may not personally like it, but I find it hard to actually utter the words, "It is wrong," because I think that's a lie.

I don't know how to have conversations on moral issues without feeling hypocritical. I can talk about the pragmatics of littering all day long, but whether something is or isn't pragmatic does not suddenly give it moral value.

Littering irritates me, but I'm not doing the world much of a disservice by not saying it's wrong. The real problem comes with more touchy issues. I despise racism, but how can I say that racists are "wrong"? People who murder, people who prey upon the weakness of others, bigots, those with vile prejudice -- all of these people feel like scum to me. But how can I look any of these people in the eye and say they are objectively bad people when I don't believe things are objectively bad?

This is my problem. I don't know how to have a meaningful conversation about these issues if I can't even claim that there is someone who is absolutely in the wrong.

I hope that clarifies things a little bit, the issue I'm having is more difficult to put into words than I initially thought.
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,774
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
--> @Lernaean
I don't know if this helps, but I like to break things down to positive and negative and whether or not someone has been influenced or affected by either. In terms of the personal life of any one individual there is less of a matter of right and wrong, or positive and negative but when you add another party to the mix the dynamics change drastically because now the potential to effect someone is a reality, rather than just the self. So to make things simple, one can break things down to whether or not they are effecting someone in a positive way or a negative way. The same could be said for the individual and whether or not their choices impact themselves positively or negatively. There's a lot of grey area here though, and in this case things that are neither positive or negative are just neutral.
This should be pretty easy to distinguish if something is going to have positive or negative effect or if something is just neutral, by the impact it may have on someone or something. Beliefs and the lack thereof really play no part in this, this is about actions, positive and negative (right and wrong) are only viable in our interactions and therefore it should be simple to know whether something is going to be good or bad for the self or for another person. But again, there is also the neutral grounds and moral "rules" fall in this category because they are just rules. Nothing counts until actions are taken and until someone or something (environment) has been impacted by it.

keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @Lernaean
Littering is neither objectively right or wrong.
Littering is objectively untidy and inefficient.  Your brain identifies literring as having negtive utility and passes that information into your consciousness as 'littering is wrong'.


TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 309
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
--> @Lernaean
Good and bad are objective only as they fit into a subjective moral standard.

I look at morality this way - one creates a moral standard such as "striving for the most amount of well being and the least amount of suffering for everyone" (good) being at one end of a spectrum and "the most amount of suffering and least amount of well being for everyone" (bad) being at the other. That is a subjective moral standard that most people would probably agree with. Any action that anyone takes can objectively be determined to be more good or bad as it applies to that standard.

It gets complicated when priorities are not in agreement.

In the case of littering, it can be argued that an eyesore has been created, there are possible negative environmental effects, someone may be inconvenienced by having to clean up the litter, etc. That can objectively be shown to be "bad" based on the above subjective moral standard. The person littering, however may place far more importance on their own convenience, rejecting those points as trivial and objectively place that action on the good side of the standard. That is why we don't always agree on moral issues. We have different priorities which have more or less weight when measured against a predetermined standard.


Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,675
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @Lernaean
It feels like I am essentially saying, "You should believe in my moral rules because I want you to." One can make these arguments from a pragmatic or compassionate or whatever standpoint, but valuing those standpoints still seems entirely arbitrary.

Empathy. It's a thing.

Morality only exists when there are two or more independent actors.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @Lernaean
People who murder, people who prey upon the weakness of others, bigots, those with vile prejudice -- all of these people feel like scum to me. But how can I look any of these people in the eye and say they are objectively bad people when I don't believe things are objectively bad?
I think the probem is reduced if you avoid saying 'bad'.  If you run into a racist bigot you don't say he is bad or evil; instead you say he creates hatred and division.

mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,987
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Empathy. It's a thing. Morality only exists when there are two or more independent actors.
Most simplistic example is, we see someone yawning and that visual makes us feel like yawning also.

Morality is good because it is inherently associated with civilized.

Civilization is good because it inherently means a finite,  integral,  lines-of-relationship network, that, aid in two more humans cooperating, to accomplish a task that is civil ergo morally acceptable to the largest, finite set of humans.

24 days later

Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,322
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
--> @Lernaean
If your goal is simply not to speak hypocritically, just be honest that you don't observe the truth, believe in it or what have you, and don't speak in terms of morality, because nothing is right or wrong.  For example, one can appeal to empathetic reason under moral relativism.

Honestly, your words seem more like you are just lost, humbled, and kind than someone who doesn't believe in truth, and that's perfectly normal.  I don't believe we are talking about moral relativism if you are just acknowledging your limitations.
WyseGui
WyseGui's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
4
WyseGui's avatar
WyseGui
0
0
4
I think you need to find a basis for your morality. Without that it's more or less just common sense. IMO morals are basically rules or creed we adapt overtime for the betterment of society. So when I discuss the topic, I use that as my basis for right and wrong. I think morality can be objective in that sense.
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,322
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
--> @WyseGui
*Ethics

WyseGui
WyseGui's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
4
WyseGui's avatar
WyseGui
0
0
4
--> @Snoopy
I don't think there is any notable difference
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 426
1
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
1
5
8
Well, i look at things from a theistic moral absolutism, basically what God says is right is right and what he says is wrong is wrong.  I honestly have no idea how to think in a moral relativistic manner.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,230
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @Melcharaz
what God says is right is right and what he says is wrong is wrong.
How do we determine what any god(s) say about anything?

Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 426
1
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
1
5
8
--> @secularmerlin
use the text, what the text doesn't refer or apply to, depend on the spirit.
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 426
1
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
1
5
8
--> @nagisa3
yes
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 426
1
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
1
5
8
--> @nagisa3
Im not sure what you mean literally. I believe the Word of God is jesus christ himself and therefore true. 
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 426
1
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
1
5
8
--> @nagisa3
I believe the original manuscripts to be flawless and inerrant, i believe that translations of the manuscripts to be truth, putting aside typos or problems with expressing the original language.
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 426
1
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
1
5
8
--> @nagisa3
According to the bible in genesis. God created fish and fowl of the air on the 5th day and then God made animals and man on the 6th day
Genesis 1:23-27.
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 426
1
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
1
5
8
--> @nagisa3
Ah, i see you are challenging scripture based on your interpretation which lacks the context therefore making it seem like there is a contridiction. 
The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19

Judah was unable to drive them out because it wasn't the lords will for them to yet as he explains in judges 2
Judges 2:1-4 ( ill just link verses unless you want me to quote them, i suggest for sanities sake you do the same!)

“The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20
“I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5

This is actually a good one and with a bit more study reveals the nature of God and the curses of sin and unrighteousness!

unfortunately this is one of those translation errors i mentioned, the hebrew word bear in ezekiel 18:20
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/yissa_5375.htm   Yissa means will accept or lift up.  in other words the sin will be remembered not in ezekiel 18:20
However the effects of the sin of the father will visit the children, though God will not remember it in regards to the children.

“Honor thy father and thy mother…”– Exodus 20:12
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. ” — Luke 14:26

Another good one!  In this context Jesus just finished his parable about a man bidding people to his supper and how his friends and trusted ones who couldn't come, so the man told the servants to go get the poor, They did and said there was still room, so he said go in to the highways and hedges and compel them to come!  Luke 14:16-24.
Jesus was trying to say, you must put away the ways and cares of the world to bear the cross of Jesus, In using hate, he doesn't mean literally hate, but the greek word is misos.  https://biblehub.com/greek/3404.htm   which in this context means "to esteem less"  which means you cannot be a disciple of jesus if you esteem your life or even your family higher than him, and its true! you simply can't.

…he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. ” — Job 7:9
“…the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth….” — John 5:28-29

This one is a bit tricky, as there is revelation that john writes concerning that Job has no reference or understanding toward in his passage.

Basically Job is saying that those who die the death of the flesh as he alludes to in job 7:1-10.  And this is true.  However, Johns alluding to the ressurrection of the last day, as he says "Some to ressurrection of Good and those who done evil to ressurrection of damnation"  He is talking about the final judgement which is talked about in revelation 20:11-15  as well as many other verses.
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 426
1
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
1
5
8
--> @nagisa3
if you believe there are translational errors, try reading the same scriptures in niv, esv, or NASB or amplified bible, it should come out clearer.
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 426
1
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
1
5
8
--> @nagisa3
The interpretation of scripture is correct when it follows under the no contridictions rule.   As to job not knowing, he and everyone before christ didn't have access to the revelation of Jesus christ as paul explains.
1 corinthians 2:5-10


Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 426
1
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
1
5
8
--> @nagisa3
keep in mind in your reading that paul is writing to the corinthian church when he says "Us" in verse 10
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 426
1
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
1
5
8
--> @nagisa3
debate?  also its doesn't negate conversation, to assume the bible has no contridictions is to believe the bible is telling the truth, if you cannot believe the bible is telling the truth at all times then whats the point of reading it? It exegetes into spiritual territories as well as physical, As Jesus said, "If i tell you of earthly things and you believe it not, how then shall you believe if i tell you of heavenly?" john 3:12-21.

In interpreting the bible we have to lay aside our own understanding and let the bible interpret its self as we read it.  proverbs 3:5

This is why i can interpret the bible, because i cross reference with verses in the bible that help explain what normally could not be explainable without context and exegesis.

Ah! if God came down from heaven and said the bible was not true, however that would make everything in the bible a lie, even the things we know are true. (Wine can help the stomach) 
so in otherwords, there is no way you could convince me otherwise.