Moral Ideology

[Sueven]

Would you consider yourself a....

Edit: Basically...

Absolutists believe that there exists a set of ethics, morals, or principles of justice above and beyond humankind. Certain actions are "good" or "bad" or "evil" or "honorable" or whatever simply because those actions are good or bad or evil or honorable. This set of ethics is often described as being imposed by god or religiously mandated, but non religious folks can also be absolutists.

Relativists believe that ethics and morality are man-made concepts. Actions are good or bad based on evaluation from different ethical perspectives (contractualism, utilitarianism, etc). The best system of ethics or justice is generally considered to be whatever system best suits the needs of a community, because a relativist does not believe that any one ethical system is inherently correct.

[Sueven]

moral relativist.

[Lynks]

You migt want to give a definition of what both are for the slow people in this forum.

[Winnow]

Moral relativism is a view that claims moral standards are not absolute or universal, but rather emerge from social customs and other sources. Relativists consequently see moral values as applicable only within agreed or accepted cultural boundaries. Very few, if any, people hold this view in its pure form, but hold instead another more qualified verson of it.

Moral relativism stands in contrast to moral absolutism, which sees morals as fixed by an absolute human nature (Jean Jacques Rousseau), or external sources such as deities (many religions) or the universe itself (as in Objectivism). Those who believe in moral absolutes often are highly critical of moral relativism; some have been known to equate it with outright immorality or amorality.

[Zaelath]

Neither.. far too black and white. It's worse than "are you left or right" questions

[Sueven]

It's really not. It's either "a distinct set of rules for human behavior exists" or "a distinct set of rules for human behavior does not exist." It is black and white, but there is no middle ground.

[Arborealus]

Moral Relativist...actually there's some excellent brain imaging research from a cat at Purdue indicating that different cultures have significantly and substantively different gross neurological responses to similar "moral dilemma" problems...That is to say, what is a morally problematic decision in one culture is not in another.

A pretty strong indicator that morality is culturally relativistic and there is no universal "natural morality"...lemme see if I can find some links for ya...

Bah was Princeton...

http://www.forensic-psych.com/artPrince ... 29.03.html

Cohen and Greene are the leading reasearchers in the field...

Greene is the man so to speak...

http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2004 ... ality.html

[Akaran_D]

Absolutist.
I do beleive in the concept of good and evil, but I also believe there are good things that can be done for eivl intentions and bad things done for good intentions - ie: I also beleive in shades of grey.

[Sueven]

Real interesting stuff Arb, thanks for posting it.

[Marbus]

Relativist - I believe there are somethings that are absolute, i.e. Truth with a capital "T." However I believe those are few an very far between. Most actions or moral choice must be understood within the context of which they happen because some moral choices outweigh others.

Example (probably heard this one before if you've ever taken an ethics class):

Moral - Stealing is wrong.
Story - A man who has found a cure for cancer/AIDS/ebola etc... but is very greedy and is charging a price so high than most people will never be able to benefit from his discovery yet he is already wealthy and dosen't even need the money to begin with. Your wife/parent/brother is dying of this disease but you can not get the money to purchase the cure. As you are passing by his store you notice that vials of the syrum are in the front window which could be easily broken. Is it right or wrong to break the window and steal the syrum to save the life of your loved one?

My answer would be that it's not wrong to take the syrum in order to save the life of someone else. Moreso it's wrong for the person who discovered the syrum to be taking advantage of others.... While it's "wrong" to steal, it's "right" to save the life of someone if possible without hurting someone else. Now one could argue that I was hurting the man by denying him the money for this discovery... but the example is that he really dosen't need the money anyway. Life being more important than wealth. Of course, since we need laws to govern society the person who stole the syrum, even though he is morally correct, will have to pay the penalities for that act.

Marb

[Wulfran]

I agree with Zaelath that the choices do seem constricting but based on the definitions you give I would have to say I am an absolutist.

I don't ascribe to a philosophy/belief system that supports a notion of a "higher good" or anything. I try to examine most issues from as many points of view as possible before passing judgement, but at the same time some actions I believe are fundamentally wrong, no matter the perspective.

Example:
Someone killing a healthy child. Maybe a bit extreme as far as examples go, but I don't see any justification for it.

[Sueven]

Wulfran: Dealing with your example, the question is not "is it wrong to kill a healthy child?" The question is "why is it wrong to kill a healthy child?"

An absolutist would say "It is wrong because murder is wrong." Or "it is wrong because killing a child is wrong." Or something of the sort.

A relativist would say "It is wrong because we as a society have decided that murder is harmful to the general human well-being." Or "It is wrong because we must treat others as we would like to be treated." Or "It is wrong because of the pain that will be experienced by that child and those who love him." Or something else.

[Dregor Thule]

Relativist. I fear absolutists.

[Arundel Pajo]

Relativist.

[Aaeamdar]

I think you will find that many of the truths we cling to depend upon our point of view.

[Xzion]

Absolutist.
I do beleive in the concept of good and evil, but I also believe there are good things that can be done for eivl intentions and bad things done for good intentions - ie: I also beleive in shades of grey.

So stealing is wrong even if its your only hope for that day to feed your starving family, as your "stealing" from a successful restaraunt or something of the sort?

[Mak]

Absolutist.
I do beleive in the concept of good and evil, but I also believe there are good things that can be done for eivl intentions and bad things done for good intentions - ie: I also beleive in shades of grey.

So stealing is wrong even if its your only hope for that day to feed your starving family, as your "stealing" from a successful restaraunt or something of the sort?

Stealing is stealing.

Mitigating circumstances influence our response to the act, and I think that different circumstances should dictate the level of punishment, but that has no bearing on the act itself.

In your example, yes, if you took something form a restaurant that you didn't pay for, you stole from it. Yes, it might be unfair that you have nothing and it has everything; yes, they might not care enough to press charges; no, nobody may punish you for it- but none of that changes the fact that you committed the act of theft.

Do you want to argue the semantical and ethical justifications about why stealing is wrong to begin with? Or any other "wrong" or "illegal" act? Are you arguing for anarchy?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Absolutist.
I do beleive in the concept of good and evil, but I also believe there are good things that can be done for eivl intentions and bad things done for good intentions - ie: I also beleive in shades of grey.

So stealing is wrong even if its your only hope for that day to feed your starving family, as your "stealing" from a successful restaraunt or something of the sort?

Stealing is stealing.

Mitigating circumstances influence our response to the act, and I think that different circumstances should dictate the level of punishment, but that has no bearing on the act itself.

In your example, yes, if you took something form a restaurant that you didn't pay for, you stole from it. Yes, it might be unfair that you have nothing and it has everything; yes, they might not care enough to press charges; no, nobody may punish you for it- but none of that changes the fact that you committed the act of theft.

Do you want to argue the semantical and ethical justifications about why stealing is wrong to begin with? Or any other "wrong" or "illegal" act? Are you arguing for anarchy?

Very well said. This poll really is just another are you liberal? or are you not a liberal? poll. Liberals don't believe in rules and we non-libs do.

[Arundel Pajo]

Not necessarily, Mid. I think it's important not to wholly equate moral absolutism with a recognition of legality and illegality and an adherance to those social norms.

Stealing is still stealing, and the person that steals to save his starving family does so in the full knowledge that he is breaking society's contract and in doing so is risking punishment. It would be perfectly reasonable for the shop owner to seek a conviction regardless the circumstance, just as it would be perfectly reasonable for the thief to *expect* punishment - but what about the *moral* implications of the theft? Is the trespass of stealing outweighed morally by the good that is done in feeding the starving woman and child? And how does this stack up morally against a theft that is carried out from pure greed? Forgetting for a moment the issue of legality, are the two *morally* the same?

Consider manslaugher... Murder is a crime, unless in self-defense, but killing in self-defense is still killing, no? And we all know "thou shalt not kill."

I guess my point is that this moral absolutist/relativist exists outside our views of societal rules and legality. It's not really a "those who abide by the law vs. godless heathens" issue.

edit>> on preview, I suppose this is really directed more at Mak, who is the one making it into a law issue rather than a moral one, but it can go to both of you.

[Mak]

Not necessarily, Mid. I think it's important not to wholly equate moral absolutism with a recognition of legality and illegality and an adherance to those social norms.

Stealing is still stealing, and the person that steals to save his starving family does so in the full knowledge that he is breaking society's contract and in doing so is risking punishment. It would be perfectly reasonable for the shop owner to seek a conviction regardless the circumstance, just as it would be perfectly reasonable for the thief to *expect* punishment - but what about the *moral* implications of the theft? Is the trespass of stealing outweighed morally by the good that is done in feeding the starving woman and child? And how does this stack up morally against a theft that is carried out from pure greed? Forgetting for a moment the issue of legality, are the two *morally* the same?

Consider manslaugher... Murder is a crime, unless in self-defense, but killing in self-defense is still killing, no? And we all know "thou shalt not kill."

I guess my point is that this moral absolutist/relativist exists outside our views of societal rules and legality. It's not really a "those who abide by the law vs. godless heathens" issue.

edit>> on preview, I suppose this is really directed more at Mak, who is the one making it into a law issue rather than a moral one, but it can go to both of you.

Actually, it was Xzion that introduced that aspect of it.

I agree with your viewpoint, mostly. While I can certainly agree that stealing food is less of a moral crime than kids going hungry, there is a lot to be said for adhering to laws and maintaining a structured society- which allows more of us to provide for our families with greater reliability than the alternative.

[Arundel Pajo]

...there is a lot to be said for adhering to laws and maintaining a structured society- which allows more of us to provide for our families with greater reliability than the alternative.

...and that's totally true, which is why societies put such laws in place! However, our adherance to the social contract of a society (which we enter into by choosing to live in said society) does not always line up perfectly with our own personal morals -- morals which for most of us are relatively dynamic.

To again use the above analgoy of manslaughter, this moral/legal dissonance is one of the chief reasons why those who kill another within their perfectly legal right of self-defense tend to wind up needing therapy. The law says it was ok and forgiveable....but these people have a hard time justifying it to *themselves* sometimes when confronted with the reality of a life that they took.

edit>> Regarding Akaran's original post that Xzion questioned....

Akaran, there can be no relativism without opposing poles. To be understand moral relativism is not to deny that there are purely good and purely evil acts (though whether or not altruism actually exists is a topic for another debate), but rather it is an understanding of the long gray field that lies between. By your own admission, you state that you see many shades of morality between your absolutes - the very hallmark of a moral relativist, yet you cast your vote in the poll as an absolutist. This puzzles me.

[Akaran_D]

Maybe I misread the terms of definition then - my take on it was realtivist did not beleive in the concept of purely good or purely evil, but only the shades of grey in between.

If you do an incredibly henious act, like slaughtering 500 newborns in their cribs, but you do it for the so called good of humanity (IE: if these 500 children don't die, then we all die, and there is no reason to believe otherwise) is it good, or is it evil?

It'd be easy to say the ends always justify the means. But, they don't.

[Voronwë]

well Akaran in a moral absolutist framework, the United States Army is worse than Al Qaeda.

We have killed over 10,000 innocent civilians in Iraq, as opposed to 3,000 in NYC.

If you are a moral reletavist then you might apply a different context to the two sets of conditions.

i think that example actually works to draw the distinction between the two views.

Mid your "interpretation" of the definition of moral reletavist could not be more incorrect. It has nothing to do with political ideology, and even more to the point, it has nothing to do with lack of morality. IT just means that in certain circumstances it is OK to do certain things. I"m sure you would say it is OK to kill somebody in self defense, correct? If you are a moral absolutist, i'm not sure how you can reconcile that.

[Akaran_D]

I guess you could concile it by working with the laws of the land to define what is moral, but if what you find is moral defiens your laws...

crap. Not even 1030 and I have confused the piss out of myself, aborting this thread for now. ><

[Marbus]

In my opinion you have to be a relativist in order to truly understand morality, especially from a Christian standpoint by definition of being a Christian alone. God represents Truth with a capital "T", all powerful, all knowing. In that respect how could he let an innocent Man who is actually part of his own being die unjustly? Because that "Man's" sacrifice made it possible for all others to have something previously impossible, direct communion with God. That sacrifice would save the "souls" of countless millions throughout the ages. If you profess to believing that Christ died on the Cross for the forgiveness of sin and that he was without sin, then it logically follows that you believe certain acts which we would consider legally wrong can still be morally correct in the right circumstance...

Whew... that's too deep this early, I need more coffee before I read this thread again

Marb

[masteen]

I am absolutely sure that pie > cake. Other than that, it's all a matter of interpretation.

[Tenuvil]

As someone who generally subscribes to Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy, I consider myself more Absolutist -- but without a religious framework to wrap around it.

Something either is or it isn't. A is A, and A is never B.

I think the religious connotations attributed to Absolutism are somewhat misleading. While there are some people who think something is universally wrong because God says it is and therefore Absolutist, the philosophical idea of Absolutism isn't predicated on spiritual beliefs.

[Winnow]

You can be a moral absolutist and still accept that moral relativism happens.

For example. Stealing food from a store to feed your family. You know it's wrong in an absolutist way but relatively speaking you've got to do what you've got to do even if it's wrong ro feed your family...you could drag this out into a discussion about "the greater good" and even drag Spock into this and address the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.

I'm not sure why you can't have both.

Say me and kyoukan are in England and terrorists have hooked up a nuclear bomb to detonate when Big Ben chimes at the stroke of midnight. The only way for me to stop it is to jam the gear mechanism of the clock by stuffing kyoukan's body in between the gears, crushing kyoukan but saving the city.

I may believe murder is wrong in an absolute moral way but relative to the many that would die, it's an acceptable loss. I understand moral relativity to mean that kyoukan's death was no longer wrong due to circumstances but why can't you still believe it's wrong and do it anyway as an absolute moralist?

Voronwe, are you argueing that a moral absolutist can't believe something is always morally wrong but need to do it anyway? You make it sound from your example of Iraq and the United States that it's not ultimately wrong for anyone to die from war but that it's accepted for the greater good.

"The greater good" concept is a difficult one to grasp for many. If what I've described above is relative morality even though you understand it's ultimately unmoral in an absolute way, then never mind!

[Voronwë]

i prefer Stoli to absolut anyway

[Winnow]

i prefer Stoli to absolut anyway

And yet sometimes you drink Absolut! But for the greater good of the people you're with you choose to drink Absolut and not complain...especially if someone else is buying! You willingly do an injustice to your tastebuds.

Moral flip flopper!

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

well Akaran in a moral absolutist framework, the United States Army is worse than Al Qaeda.

We have killed over 10,000 innocent civilians in Iraq, as opposed to 3,000 in NYC.

If you are a moral reletavist then you might apply a different context to the two sets of conditions.

i think that example actually works to draw the distinction between the two views.

Mid your "interpretation" of the definition of moral reletavist could not be more incorrect. It has nothing to do with political ideology, and even more to the point, it has nothing to do with lack of morality. IT just means that in certain circumstances it is OK to do certain things. I"m sure you would say it is OK to kill somebody in self defense, correct? If you are a moral absolutist, i'm not sure how you can reconcile that.

Vor, the way the poll question was presented and interpreted just look at the percentages and it looks exactly like every other poll seperating the libs from the non libs.

Slef-defense and prevention of a country against a group of murders just doesn't equate to a guy stealign to feed his family. If he wants to feed his family he gets a job and works his ass off. The connections drawn by some here just have no realistic connections to the real world.

[Xyun]

you are a complete fuckin retard.

[Arundel Pajo]

Lawrence Kohlberg

[Aaeamdar]

The examples above are not, generally, displaying the difference between relativism and absolutism, they are mostly examining utilitarianism - which is itself morally absolutist.

An absolutist can declare someting moral or immoral based on his own principals alone. If you describe an act and its attenuating immediate circumstances, but provide no cultural context, an absolutist can tell you if the act was moral or not.

A relatist, however, would require more information because (s)he does not judge actions based on his or her own culture, (s)he judges them within the context of the culture of the person committing the act.

The acts many of you are describing are too simplistic. "The killing of an innocent child" even for an absolutist in Western society could be morally justified, and thus is insufficient information for even a person in our culture who proports to be an absolutist to judge.

A better example, one that really does distiguish an absolutist from a relativist, would be - "Is it immoral to raise a child to the age of 15 for the purpose of ritualistic sacrifice?" An absolutist in our culture would clearly say that act is immoral. A relativist would require more information about culture in which the child was being raised and sacrificed.