How to avoid moral relativism in a secular system

[ENSAIS]

Hi guys-
I was thinking as I waded through the larger threads on the forum.

Where do the moral values of a secular humanist, an atheist, or an agnostic come from?

Are they necessarily relativist-- you have your pet values, I'll have mine? You were raised sensitive to one set of historical events or moral disasters, but my values reflect different sets-- and there is not a way to discern which is superior?

What defines morality? Is there a shared morality that is not defined by religion [well, by God really]? Or would any other morality be mere reletavism based on a disparate values of disparate interest groups....?

I'm kind of looking for imput from secular humanists, illuminated atheists, etc... more than sympathetic [if you've looked at my political profile in that thread] judeo-Christian pronouncements...

Thanks,
ENSAIS.

[Tom Paine]

Shared morality is universal as defined by laws; the only international shared morality is really that defined by international laws and such documents as the UN Declaration of Human Rights. That defines humanist morality as well, by the by.
On the matter of moral relativism; does it need to be avoided? Moral relativism is pretty irrelevant given that moral and legal are not the same thing; as such moral relativism is irrelevant to anything, in the end. Furthermore everyone in the end believes their morality is superior because it is theirs, without reason; how does one compare a moral system to another?

[ENSAIS]

Shared morality is universal as defined by laws; the only international shared morality is really that defined by international laws and such documents as the UN Declaration of Human Rights. That defines humanist morality as well, by the by.
On the matter of moral relativism; does it need to be avoided? Moral relativism is pretty irrelevant given that moral and legal are not the same thing; as such moral relativism is irrelevant to anything, in the end. Furthermore everyone in the end believes their morality is superior because it is theirs, without reason; how does one compare a moral system to another?

So the only morality that matters is what is enshrined in law?! I guess the next step is that only laws that are enforced matter... leading to morality of what is punishable only...

The problem with just pointint to the UN Declaration is a) not really enforced, b) came from other Declarations (such as US Declaration, etc) that have in varying degrees been explicitly based on religious belief anyway.... so really seems to me to be just an areligious (and so emasculated) version of prior declarations whose morality derived from overtly religious sources.


Anyone care to elaborate on the question at hand [or is it too neutered and itellectual?]

ENSAIS

[Shaun]

So the only morality that matters is what is enshrined in law?! I guess the next step is that only laws that are enforced matter... leading to morality of what is punishable only...

Technically, yes, but technically all laws still matter even if they are not enforced.

The problem with just pointint to the UN Declaration is a) not really enforced, b) came from other Declarations (such as US Declaration, etc) that have in varying degrees been explicitly based on religious belief anyway....

A)Well they need to be enforced before.
B)Who says that religious belief morals are necessarily bad?

so really seems to me to be just an areligious (and so emasculated) version of prior declarations whose morality derived from overtly religious sources.

Actually, human's had morals long before religion came around, the rise of human morals was far more due to common sense than religion.

[Simetrical]

No moral tenet can be proven true based on universally, or even near-universally, acceptable axioms. Therefore, no moral tenet can be said to be "correct" or "true" in any absolute sense. That is the essence of moral relativism, and it is not logically contestable.

Of course, one possible reply might be that that's true of anything, and that's an argument that can at least be made. But I certainly disagree. There are many things that can be said to be definitely correct, if possibly with some margin of error. Take any number of humans, present them with two apples, and ask them how many apples there are. Virtually all of them who have an opinion (i.e., those who know how to count) will give the same answer: two. Therefore, it can be said to be at least a consensus reality.

Naturally, someone will bring up the Earth being flat, etc. Yes, what is believed to be correct by most people isn't necessarily correct. But any incorrectness will be due to faulty logic, not faulty axioms. If you believe the Earth is flat, you'll look around, see it's flat locally, not notice anything to contradict it, and so assume it's correct. Your axioms, what you observe, are all correct: the Earth is flat locally. You just didn't follow the axioms to their logical conclusion. Your axioms are sound, but your logic bad.

So what we sense can be said to be absolutely true, with some room for error. Then logical structures we build up, whether built up upon what we sense (science) or built upon logic alone (mathematics), can be ascribed truth values as well. But the only universally acceptable axioms are those of the senses. We can usually almost all agree on most aspects of what we sense, given time for inspection and contemplation, and again leaving some room for us to change our minds and so on; but we cannot agree on any prescriptive axioms whatsoever. No such axiom, therefore, can be regarded as absolutely true, and nor can any moral system (which must of necessity be derived from prescriptive axioms).

Actually, human's had morals long before religion came around

There is no point in human history at which we can definitively state that religion did not exist; we don't know when it arose. Morals, however, in the sense of not always acting in your immediate self-interest, long predated the human race, certainly.

Moral relativism does not exist. Positing that there is a rule of any sort, such as, "All morality is relative" is in and of itself an absolute. Ergo, morality will be conceived by human beings to always have one or another absolute quality.

Very pat, but that sentence is based on ambiguity in terminology (what's "morality"?) and is essentially a straw-man argument. Many people who have said "All morality is relative" intended that statement to apply to itself: you're attacking a position that they didn't take, whether or not you think a specific phrasing of the position theoretically means something other than what was obviously intended. (Of course, some adherents of moral relativism are in fact relativist about relativism itself, but you were seemingly trying to attack all moral relativism, in which case your argument becomes a straw man.)

[mrjesushat]

Very pat, but that sentence is based on ambiguity in terminology (what's "morality"?) and is essentially a straw-man argument. Many people who have said "All morality is relative" intended that statement to apply to itself: you're attacking a position that they didn't take, whether or not you think a specific phrasing of the position theoretically means something other than what was obviously intended. (Of course, some adherents of moral relativism are in fact relativist about relativism itself, but you were seemingly trying to attack all moral relativism, in which case your argument becomes a straw man.)

Astonishing. I wasn't attacking anything at all. I was simply making an observation. This reminds me of something that a professor of mine once said:

"A lot of ostensibly logical people will claim that it is wrong or unnecessary to employ an ad hominem attack. But those individuals fail to recognize the fact that, if the problem is not with your opponent's argument, perhaps it lies within your opponent. If we recognize the existence and validity of psychology and psychiatry---indeed, any form of mental or emotional discipline or therapy---then we must recognize the possibility that those with whom we disagree are too twisted or too limited to ever understand true reason."

I thought he was an absurd boob of a human being. But then he said what I quoted above (I was taping the lecture), and I knew he was an absurd boob of a human being.

Worrying about whether or not people understand terminology should probably be the last thing you concern yourself with. It is just possible that my statement merely demonstrates the essential linkage between metaphysics and the development of morality. Perhaps I knew very well what I was saying, and it was you who did not understand it? Yes, that could be. Maybe I said it in such a way that it was not easy to understand? That could be, too.

Here's what you didn't work out on your own, probably since you were reacting emotionally to some imagined slight contained in my post. It is impossible to make a relative statement in absolute terms. You can believe otherwise, but I think that's called, "delusion". Yeah, I just checked in the dictionary, and "delusion" is exactly the word I was looking for.

I think my point is, don't assume every declarative statement that you run into to be an attack of some sort.

Welcome to dialectic.

And if my argument's a straw man, then yours is a space man.

[Tom Paine]

So the only morality that matters is what is enshrined in law?!

No, the only morality that matters widely is that which is enshrined in law; personally, one's own morality matters as well, but not to anyone beyond oneself.

I guess the next step is that only laws that are enforced matter... leading to morality of what is punishable only...

See above.

The problem with just pointint to the UN Declaration is a) not really enforced, b) came from other Declarations (such as US Declaration, etc) that have in varying degrees been explicitly based on religious belief anyway.... so really seems to me to be just an areligious (and so emasculated) version of prior declarations whose morality derived from overtly religious sources.

Areligious does not mean emasculated in any way; if you want to insult areligious matters, please, dop it overtly. Furthermore it is no less strong than previous documents and is a good deal stronger than some; eg, the Bill of Rights does not guarantee a right to healthcare or education, whereas the UN Declaration gurantees both of these things. The fact it is unenforced makes it no less of a basis for morality.

[Pnutmaster]

(The origin of morality was argued to some degree in this thread...)

It is no coincidence that United States laws bear traces of Judo-Christian commandments and views. However, this is not to suggest that the United States Constitution and other articles of law were directly modelled after Christianity or Judaism.

Christianity, as a religion inspired both by Greek teachings and Eastern cultures, is in a way the ideal ground for universal morality. Being a blend of traditions and beliefs spanning much farther than the Mediterranean and the Middle East, it represents a fairly wide spectrum of humanity. Again, this is not coincidental. While different peoples of the world may not agree on the specifics of laws--the details, the numbers, the punishments, etc, our cultural universals decree, by the authority of genetic programming, that the loss of life is never to be ignored and that (ironically) moral relativism cannot guide the hands of the law or the individual. Our instincts will permit no less--there must always be a right and wrong.

[mrjesushat]

Moral relativism does not exist. Positing that there is a rule of any sort, such as, "All morality is relative" is in and of itself an absolute. Ergo, morality will be conceived by human beings to always have one or another absolute quality.

That said, a secular system can be moral by simply according with basic human views. It is essential to nearly all people that they have a reasonable degree of comfort and a degree of freedom. It is also essential in the same way for people to view the system they live under as being to some degree, fair. If these conditions are met, and the laws created can be seen to accord to these themes, then morality has been achieved.

[Lord Bohemond]

Shared morality is universal as defined by laws; the only international shared morality is really that defined by international laws and such documents as the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Which is irrelevant. Those laws are shaped by what the majority of the members want. So if the majority of the world leaders decided a certain ethnic group should be exterminated, that would be passed into law.

Come on - we're talking about the group that put Libya in charge of the Human Rights Commission.

That defines humanist morality as well, by the by.
On the matter of moral relativism; does it need to be avoided? Moral relativism is pretty irrelevant given that moral and legal are not the same thing; as such moral relativism is irrelevant to anything, in the end. Furthermore everyone in the end believes their morality is superior because it is theirs, without reason; how does one compare a moral system to another?

How is it irrelevant? Your moral system influences every decision you make in your life. Being a relativist changes things alot.

However you are right, "relativism in its true form is pretty rare. Most "relativists" are hypocrites. They claim that all systems are equal, then push their particular agendas, like their opinion on women's rights and gay marriage, as unquestionable doctrine.

[Tom Paine]

Which is irrelevant. Those laws are shaped by what the majority of the members want. So if the majority of the world leaders decided a certain ethnic group should be exterminated, that would be passed into law.

Come on - we're talking about the group that put Libya in charge of the Human Rights Commission.

This being the Libya that the US and UK now love, in fact... yeah, you don't have a leg to stand on. Sorry.

How is it irrelevant? Your moral system influences every decision you make in your life. Being a relativist changes things alot.

However you are right, "relativism in its true form is pretty rare. Most "relativists" are hypocrites. They claim that all systems are equal, then push their particular agendas, like their opinion on women's rights and gay marriage, as unquestionable doctrine.

Being a relativist changes nothing. All morals are externally relative but I will follow my own personal morality; whereas otherwise, it'd be, my morality is superior so I'll follow it. No difference in the end, except one is less rigid.

[MaximiIian]

Shared morality is universal as defined by laws

However, laws are a creation of humans, a very flawed species indeed, and can be broken without much of a howdy-doo.

[Tom Paine]

However, laws are a creation of humans, a very flawed species indeed, and can be broken without much of a howdy-doo.

Other than the whole punishments business. Shared morality , because we may not agree with it, must be reinforced by a system of rewards and punishments. Personal morality is personal and we must believe in it and so does not require such a system.

[mongoose]

Where do the moral values of a secular humanist, an atheist, or an agnostic come from?

It depends on the person. Humanism is pretty common among atheists, I think.

Judging from your definition it was perfectly normal. He felt that by eliminating Jews, he would benefit the German people and all thier problems would be gone

But he had no logical reason for thinking that the Jews are a danger to humanity. There's the problem.

[MasterAdnin]

But he had no logical reason for thinking that the Jews are a danger to humanity. There's the problem.

No, he generalized Jews that they only looked out for one another and that they are all greedy and evil, that was his reason for killing and exterminating them to benefit the german people, and again, by Katrina's definition is perfection normal, and actually moral.

Basicly, I'm saying that Morality is all relative to whom you speak with.

Salaam,
Adnan

[mongoose]

No, he generalized Jews that they only looked out for one another and that they are all greedy and evil, that was his reason for killing and exterminating them to benefit the german people, and again, by Katrina's definition is perfection normal, and actually moral.

But because he had no objective reason for thinking that Jewish people are evil, it was still a completely irrational idea.

Clearly, if you believe God gave you morality, that's a basis on which it makes at least intuitive sense to say everyone else is wrong about it: God is, after all, omniscient. But if you don't believe God gave you morality, how do you know you're right? What if you're wrong? Why is your belief better than the next guy's?

How do you know what God wants? Why is your belief about God's will any better than the next guy's?

[Sammur-amat]

i couldn't agree more with grim on this...

[I Have a Clever Name]

Moral relativism does not exist. Positing that there is a rule of any sort, such as, "All morality is relative" is in and of itself an absolute. Ergo, morality will be conceived by human beings to always have one or another absolute quality.

The statement 'all morality is relative' is not a moral tenet. Its a metaphysical affirmation. You are confusing what is good and bad with what is true and false. As such, you have done nothing to contest the truthfulness of the statement.

Where do the moral values of a secular humanist, an atheist, or an agnostic come from?

Are they necessarily reletavist-- you have your pet values, I'll have mine? You were raised sensitive to one set of historical events or moral disasters, but my values reflect different sets-- and there is not a way to discern which is superior?

What defines morality? Is there a shared morality that is not defined by religion [well, by God really]? Or would any other morality be mere reletavism based on a disparate values of disparate interest groups....?

I'm kind of looking for imput from secular humanists, illuminated atheists, etc... more than sympathetic [if you've looked at my political profile in that thread] judeo-Christian pronouncements...

Our social influence combined with an instinctive biological basis for what is acceptable and what is not defines morality. It may seem a frightening prospect, but morality is just a survival device - viewed as such, the need to invoke a hypothetical divine presence (which, as the Euthyphro dilemma demonstrates hardly resolves the issue).

Consider a simple example. I think polygamy is acceptable, I assume that you, as a Christian, do not. On what basis do you elevate your predilection over my own? Morality is based on emotional responses to certain actions in my view - it is a philosophical stance known as emotivism. Many other agnostics probably disagree, but my appreciation of morality is darwinist - that our sense of 'good' and 'bad' is merely an advanced form of the instinctive compulsion that stops Chimpanzees killing one another in droves, but instead promotes co-operation.

Secular ethics are feasible because within a society our personal ethics influence on another profoundly - this results in compatability in most areas, allowing cohesion and stability. The commonly acceptable ethical stance becomes law. If the majority of individuals experience a change in their subjective ethical stance, the law must too change with it. The law is merely a formalized manifestation of individual sentiment.

I hope this has been of some help to you!

[mrjesushat]

The statement 'all morality is relative' is not a moral tenet. Its a metaphysical affirmation. You are confusing what is good and bad with what is true and false. As such, you have done nothing to contest the truthfulness of the statement.

Actually, I was contesting the truthiness of the statement, but since you raise the point, morality does not exist in a vacuum. Morality is nearly always derived from a metaphysical platform, some sort of understanding about the nature of the cosmos and humanity's place within it. While I understand that many philosophically inclined persons (or even "philosophers") would like everything to be neatly categorized and for no discipline of information or knowledge to infringe upon any other, that's not how the fathers of philosophy saw it. It's also not a reasonable way to assess a cosmos in which all elements and factors are intimately linked.

Good and bad are intimately linked to true and false. That's my point. So it's not a question of confusion, but rather one of contesting the very basis of how many people and disciplines address the issue.

Further, the statement, "All morality is relative" is a moral tenet. This is obvious, since such a statement, when the essential integer of a sort of moral calculus (Jeremy Bentham), is the basis of said system. Ergo, it is the first and key element of any such design of morality, and must of necessity be a moral declaration, from which all other moral tenents will be derived.

And now, Star Wars.

[I Have a Clever Name]

The statement 'all morality is relative' is not a moral tenet. Its a metaphysical affirmation. You are confusing what is good and bad with what is true and false. As such, you have done nothing to contest the truthfulness of the statement.

Actually, I was contesting the truthiness of the statement, but since you raise the point, morality does not exist in a vacuum. Morality is nearly always derived from a metaphysical platform, some sort of understanding about the nature of the cosmos and humanity's place within it. While I understand that many philosophically inclined persons (or even "philosophers") would like everything to be neatly categorized and for no discipline of information or knowledge to infringe upon any other, that's not how the fathers of philosophy saw it. It's also not a reasonable way to assess a cosmos in which all elements and factors are intimately linked.

You state that morality is derived from human understanding of nature - how so? From what observation do we glean our sense of morality? Certainly I see no available source, and must hence come to the conclusion that it is subjective, not objective - and thus, relative (unless you make the ridiculous affirmation that all morality is universal, and that all adhere to it).

The fathers of philosophy were almost always wrong. I can see why they came to the conclusions they did, and the approach they developed was instrumental to the advancement of human thought though it was often confused. The Platonic attidue towards morality, which you seem to advocate (forgive me if I'm incorrect), is extremely dogmatic and is merely representative of a confusion between logic and observation.

For those unfamiliar: I label some things as 'good' therefore I know 'good' a priori, so there must be a universal form of good that defines absolute goodness.

This approach makes clear the common confusion between logic and observation the Greek philosophers made. I do not think that because different individuals classify certain actions as 'good' around the globe that there is somewhere a universal eiptome of goodness. It just doesn't follow. Certainly this affirmation does nothing to refute relativism, because it relies on empirically untested speculation supplanted in shaky logic!

Good and bad are intimately linked to true and false. That's my point. So it's not a question of confusion, but rather one of contesting the very basis of how many people and disciplines address the issue.

True and false relate to the verification of an alleged fact. If somebody murders another for personal gain you will not find anybody calling it a 'false' action. Nor will you find somebody labelling an established truth as 'good', or proclaiming that a disproven hypothesis is 'bad'. It is nothing more than a confusion between morality and factuality.

Further, the statement, "All morality is relative" is a moral tenet. This is obvious, since such a statement, when the essential integer of a sort of moral calculus (Jeremy Bentham), is the basis of said system. Ergo, it is the first and key element of any such design of morality, and must of necessity be a moral declaration, from which all other moral tenents will be derived.

All morality is relative is a moral tenet? I cannot see how that is the case. Its a proposition that does not relate to human action whatsoever - your argument is wholly reliant on this shaky coming together of 'good and bad' with 'truth and falsity'. These are two pairs of opposites that do not relate to one another in any regard.

I apologise in advance for any incoherencies, I'm quite tired!

So you are saying, in the end, that morality is based on preservation of the species through genetic variance and prevention of pain to others? Yet this is anti-Darwinian, which supposes preservation of the species is best served through survival of the fittest...

If a grouping of social animals co-operates and adheres to given rules it promotes cohesion and solidarity. This is from an evolutionary perspective wholly attractive, surely? In many other species 'survival of the fittest' does involve contests within a species, as does our own (in the form of inter-'tribal' conflict), but we are not lone creatures and as such the development of morality is readily explainable.

Right, so, this demonstrates an offset by internal conflict. Hitler beleived in killing jews. Take a look at that bit, he beleived that causing discomfort for the humanrace was for the best. This is where conflict deflects morality, and therefore his actions were not moral.

You'll notice however that your classification of 'human' is different from Hitler's. Morality is dependent on empathy - to say that what is 'bad' can actually categorically be proven based on whether it inflicts pain on the human race is, although pragmatic, not a viable argument. It is merely your opinion, in turn grounded in your designation of a human. You must remember that Hitler did not feel empathy for the untermenschen, therefore he felt no need to extend his morality to them.