The Relativity of Morality...

BTW I am not saying I think morality is relative, because I certainly don't (I do believe in gay marriage, consenting adults, etc...). But you know many times in my life, I have encountered situations that made me wonder if morality isn't relative sometimes.


For example, I had this doctor once. And he was a pretty obvious racist. But he once told me, I could call him anytime, day or night, and he'd be there for me. Even if he was no longer a doctor. So was he a good person or a bad person? See what I mean?


And you know, I'm a trekkie. And I think that's perfect fo this. Because did you notice? The Borg. Were they evil or just different? Or what about Q?


Please post some of your own stories. I'd love to hear them ...

 

Check out Kolberg's theory of moral development for a deeper understanding of how morality evolves, and the different stages of moral development.

 

We need to clarify what moral relativity means. It can mean (1) relative to circumstances (e.g, cannibalism is ordinarily immoral, but what if starving survivors of a plane crash in the desert are forced to eat deceased members of the crew to survive? (I say, not immoral); (2) relative to culture (e.g., human sacrifice was the thing to do in Aztec society, slavery was accepted in the ancient world and the antebellum south, etc.; and (3) relative to overall conduct, e.g., your example of the generally caring, helpful racist.. Each of these presents somewhat different issues when it comes to morality. I also draw a distinction between judging the sin and the sinner. And of course, our judgments depend on our own code of morality. I happen to think mine is the right one, but you may have other ideas.

Where judging the sin is concerned, I'm basically a utilitarian in my moral judgements, qualified by Rawls' contractarian parameters and Mill's qualtiative considerations. A practice is generally good if it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, and bad to the extent it does the opposite--regardless of what the people in a given society might think about it. From the standpoint of circumstances, I'd give the cannibals a pass if they were consuming deceased fellow passengers to keep themselves alive. While cannibalism is ordinarily wrong, in the extraordinary case of the plane crash, lifeboat, etc, where the dead are sacrificed to prevent other deaths, they were doing the right thing. Where cultural relativism is concerned, I think some accepted practices can be condemned as evil. Human sacrifice is always wrong, although in judging the perpetrators I take intent into account. The Aztecs thought it was necessary to provide the gods with the toanli (life force) they need to keep going. So while the human sacrifice was horrendously wrong, I tend to excuse the practitioners who meant well. When it comes to overall conduct, we're all in the same boat of falling short of moral perfection in one way or another. Racism is wrong, but your racist doctor may have gotten that way because of cultural circumstances he couldn't really control.

I have a couple of racist friends. One, a plumber and recovering alcoholic, wears a chain of confederate flags around his neck and has a vocabulary that would send progressives into cardiac arrest. But like your doctor, he generally has an otherwise good heart. He picked up his racial views at home and in reform school in rural Oklahoma. He knows I don't approve of the racist views. He's not our sterotypical bigot, since he had an Obama for President sign in his front yard in 2012, when the alternative was Romney.He now has three Hispanic grandchildren from a daughter who is less discriminatory in her liasons. The other racist friend, likewise, has multi-racial grandchildren from both a daughter and a son whose partners were African-American. He's had to clean up his mouth considerably, and has come to admire his African-American son-in-law for being a go-getter. If I tried to shun or punish all of my friends who deviate from the straight and narrow path, I'd probably be a hermit.

 

Before humans appeared, there was no language, thus no morality, no god-- not an issue, obviously-( not that believing in a god or gods means / bestows a certainty of commonly(commonly where?) - understood morality) NOTHING that exists today except some portions of nature. Here we are with languages ,gods, religions, societies, various organizations, governments, peer pressures, allowing / determining each of us an understanding our own choices of personal reality / morality and how our relationship to such are personal, individual choices among many choices , usually aligning with the constant changing of the aforementioned, throughout the ages.

But basically--what the fuck do I know? Not much really.

 

i don't think we have to go the whole rabbit warren of relativity here.
it is possible, quite logically and simply to call consideration, by which, universal consideration, the alpha and omega of morality.

this is not because of ego or what is written in some book, religious or otherwise, or carved in some rock, possibly before the oregens of today's dominant beliefs.
and yes many may disagree, but examined objectively, tracing the roots of every anxiety and unplesantness in life,
it is aggressive inconsiderateness, that can universally be found at the root of it.

it is for this reason my assertion also, that evil is not an identity, but a form of behavior, and that aggressive inconsiderateness if that form of behavior.
and that being a form of behavior, it is a choice, and being a choice, no one needs to keep shaming themselves, by screwing the world all of us,
themselves included, by doing so.

this is not pie in the sky by and by when we die. this is this world, right here and right now.
this is what messes it up, keeps it messed up, and its all on us and our choices, not some invisible meta anything, which may exist, but is absolutely not required to account for it

 

In the relative world, relative truth changes with space and time, and so does morality. It takes a subtle intellect to understand the nuances of morality in each case or instance.

What would be correct in certain times would be seen as incorrect in other circumstances.

A thief stealing food to appease his family's hunger due to poor administrative policies by his corrupt government that resulted in famine, is different from a thief stealing out of laziness and aversion to honest hard work.

Hasty judgements based on that which seems rather than what is, is bound to result in failure of justice with its consequent evils.

Imho, it is important to be mentally equanimous ( without being swayed by one's prejudices instilled by conditioning) and do one's due diligence in understanding the facts of the matter or situation before pronouncing one's judgement on it.

 

I think it's more accurate to think of circumstances changing than truth changing. Slavery was always wrong, even though societies accepted it for centuries. Then there's Leviticus and the gay issue. At the time Leviticus prohibited men from lying with men, the survival of the Jewish population was in peril, homosexuality was associated with pagan ritual prostitution, patriarchal norms regarded men treating other men like women as shameful, and sodomization was practiced as a way of humiliating captured enemies, and loving as opposed to lustful partnerships among same sex couples were not understood. None of those things apply today. So I'd say the old rule doesn't apply to new realities.

I think rules should be judged according to the utilitarian principle:the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people in the long run. I'd agree that in the cases you present, your conclusions are correct.

 

An update on my "racist" plumber friend. He died a few weeks ago. At his memorial service, some African-Americans showed up and talked about how he had helped them through tough times. Some of my friends thought his "racism" was largely a protest against political correctness. People are complicated!

 

To answer the thread.

I do think it is,on a personal level(situation/survival)

On a bigger scale, basic morality can be(and should be) learned.............but your morality or mine?

Mzzsl

 

Not really. The fact that an individual can combine good and evil traits doesn't mean that morality in general is "relative" or illusory. It just means that life is complex, and good and evil can coexist. We have to discern which is which and make our overall assessments of people or situations on that basis.

So we must decide. Is it good or evil to forcibly assimilate people into mindless cyborgs, or to use others as means to satisfy whims or as personal entertainment? I'd say clearly evil.

By definition, morality can't be on a strictly personal level. There's nothing moral about individual survivalists. Morality entails subordination of individual interests or desires to collective ones or to universal principles. Sociobilogist E.O Wilson thinks it evolved when humans developed seprate behavioral modules for the hedonistic demands of id and the needs of the group (also necessary for human survival). Evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker agrees on the basis of fMRI studies. He thinks this is most accurately reflected in Freudian psychology and Judeo-Christian ethics. The Blank Slate; How the Mind Works. Hence the man in the red suit on one shoulder, the guy in the white robe on the other.

 

Maybe its a question about privilege. You are in the situation of using a racist doctor. Another people haven't this privilege, because she are from a doctors unworthy race. You think only of yourself. In sympathy with a doctors unworthy race, don't use the doctor. Another, you support the function of racist thinking. Then, on the other side, the doctor has the privilege to be a racist only, when another people support him.

 

Sorry bla bla bla.................Physlosphy is interesting/nice...........but looking at the current world/society.

Morality atm is based on where you are born(culture/society/religion/level of welfare/ect).

I agree for the most part............................we need to think/act as a planet(humanity/future) .................. but you need to seek/reach some equality on this planet first(food/water/roof/ect)..............and with current bs(geopolitics/energy/economie/resources/ect).

Lets hope for future generations...............



Mzzls