Generally, do you feel moral relativism is good or bad?

[kenny]

By generally, I mean generally.

I generally feel MR is good except in extreme cases.
I do not respect a culture's right to circumcise girls or bury women chest-deep in the ground and stone them to death, or kill homosexuals just for being homosexuals.
But other than such extremes I generally feel MR is good.
(Obviously, the problem is where to draw the line.)


SNIP from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures.
Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

Not all descriptive relativists adopt meta-ethical relativism, and moreover, not all meta-ethical relativists adopt normative relativism. Richard Rorty, for example, argued that relativist philosophers believe "that the grounds for choosing between such opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought," but not that any belief is equally as valid as any other.[1]

Moral relativism has been espoused, criticized, and debated for thousands of years, from ancient Greece and India down to the present day, in diverse fields including philosophy, science, and religion.

 

[Maisie]

If I understood the question I would answer. I don't think I am as well educated as most ps'ers.

 

[kenny]

If I understood the question I would answer. I don't think I am as well educated as most ps'ers.

Well, clearly it is a topic of great depth and I do not mean to trivialize it, but for purposes of this poll, read the Wikipedia link and just vote your gut feeling.

 

[Maisie]

I'm going to stay out of this thread becasue I honestly am not clever enough for this sort of discussion. I come to PS for some light entertainment so I will go and look for a thread with something sparkly in it

I'm sure you will get lots of answers from the ps'ers who do understand this sort of stuff.

 

[kenny]

No problem.

 

[MissStepcut]

I think it's good to question one's assumptions and to be open to the idea that they could be persuaded to see things differently, which is something I think MR accomplishes as a concept. But I don't think it has much value beyond being a thought experiment.

 

[iLander]

I don't think it can really be "good or bad". It's basically a label that says "The Mayans had human sacrifice and relative to their society, it was morally okay". It's just a term that explains cultural differences.

Are cultural differences okay? Not sure we can make a judgement on that, it just exists.

I do think that cultural differences are a luxury that is quickly disappearing. As societies become more global and connected, the moral judgements of one country will be heard in another country. We saw this in the late 1800's, when cannibals on distant islands were told "Hey! That's no okay!", and we hear it today, when the concept of democracy is brought to countries that never had it before. Imposing cultural judgements across sovereign nations . . . I'm not sure that's okay.

Do we really want to be a global community that shuns burkas, witch doctors, leiderhosen, evangelists, evil eyes, sage burning, totems, spirit animals, turbans, etc., etc.? We are already imposing English, Christianity, Democracy, etc. all over the globe. I'm not sure we're going to stop until the entire world looks/acts/thinks/feels like Akron, Ohio.

 

[Skippy123]

Sounds like a good like a mix Cultural Anthropology and Philosophy. I had a philosophy class that was interesting; the instructor said there was no right or wrong to a thought so it was fun chatting about a, b, c, etc. I think pondering those thoughts of morals, based on culture can be interesting and eye opening, that one way of thought isn't always right, maybe there are 2 or 3 or 4 rights? I also took a Cultural Anthropology class in College that I enjoyed it and we talked about pros and cons of each culture and pros and cons of change and how that affected the culture.

 

[lulu]

That depends....

 

[Polished]

On some things I'd rather make a call. For instance I think a society that does not make women cover themselves from head to foot with a burka displays superior values. Although this doesn't mean banning them is the solution. Equally there are things going on in other societies that could be of great benefit to our own. I'm not sure moral relativism is a particularly useful tool in which to look at societies. I don't think judgments can be avoided but but I also think respect can still sit comfortably along side with this. People in all societies do things a certain way because they do and if it was changed in any way it can cause unforeseen consequences. I remember when I studied anthropology our tutor told us about an anthropologist who stayed with a certain tribe in order to study the way it worked. As he was about to leave he gave them chickens as a thank you present for letting him live amongst them. It seemed harmless and useful - you can eat chickens and get eggs from them. It ended up causing havoc in their community, complicating and ruining complex bartering and economic arrangements that were in place within their society. All our societies are fragile - look at the consequences that have followed Depressions and world wars.

 

[Karl_K]

Evil is Evil no matter where you live on earth.
There are however differences that are not evil and people should be left alone about them.

 

[HollyS]

It's true that it seems everyone has their own idea of morality.

But the core values we all must have to maintain a working society that, for the most part, believes in honesty and integrity - - those values must be non-negotiable.

As for me, I think everyone has a moral compass. I'm not talking about society's expectations, either. I mean a knowledge of right and wrong. THAT should never be ignored, changed on a whim, or applied unequally per situation. That's the other sticky wicket . . . situational ethics. I don't believe in them, either. You know when you're doing the right thing, and you know when you aren't. Telling yourself otherwise doesn't change the truth.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I would answer the question by saying, I do have absolutes. For example: I do believe we cannot kill other people or torture others. I believe love is an absolute. The moral relativism around can be fine for developing an understanding of others points of view, which may expand our own. I'm open to listening to all philiosophies, but some things I know to be true. It a hierarchy I have.
It works for me.

Annette

 

[Missy]

It's true that it seems everyone has their own idea of morality.

But the core values we all must have to maintain a working society that, for the most part, believes in honesty and integrity - - those values must be non-negotiable.

As for me, I think everyone has a moral compass. I'm not talking about society's expectations, either. I mean a knowledge of right and wrong. THAT should never be ignored, changed on a whim, or applied unequally per situation. That's the other sticky wicket . . . situational ethics. I don't believe in them, either. You know when you're doing the right thing, and you know when you aren't. Telling yourself otherwise doesn't change the truth.

Totally agree. With the exception that everyone has a moral compass. I don't believe sociopaths have one. They might know the difference b/w right and wrong but they don't care.

And I also agree with Karl- evil is evil (i.e. Adolf Hitler personified evil IMO) and I also agree with Annette. There are some things that really are absolute. Things I know to be right or wrong. I also am open to different points of view with the exception of these absolutes.

 

[Polished]

As for me, I think everyone has a moral compass. I'm not talking about society's expectations, either. I mean a knowledge of right and wrong. THAT should never be ignored, changed on a whim, or applied unequally per situation. That's the other sticky wicket . . . situational ethics. I don't believe in them, either. You know when you're doing the right thing, and you know when you aren't. Telling yourself otherwise doesn't change the truth.

I agree with the importance of this on the individual level and also of the importance of having freedom of conscience. It's also applies through time - there are plenty of examples of authors who created main characters who went against the prevailing attitudes of their day but you're left in no doubt whose side the author is on. Eg Pride and Prejudice - Elizabeth Bennet.

Does it become more difficult though when applying judgments to societies other than our own. There are things you would love to change an extreme example being female circumcision that is still practised widely in some parts of the world. Also societies that believe in witchery and sorcery. Putting a curse on someone often has devastating consequences, such is the power of suggestion and the power of the mind to believe something. I remember my Anthrop tutor telling us she'd studied a group in Papua New Guinea and one of the Elders had come to her asking for advice on the subject as to how to get rid of it from their society. He'd said they had tried but nothing had worked. On some issues it seems better to take a stand for there to be hope that one day some practises end.

 

[justginger]

I was shaking my head in agreement with iLander. It's amazing to see how similar even far-thrown cultures are becoming to mainstream western culture, in terms of societal interactions, standards of beauty, food, language, and so on and so forth. I completely agree we're marching towards Akron, and that saddens me.

Perhaps my moral compass is guided by what I consider 'fair' or not, which is extremely subjective and should probably be completely non-applicable. I don't mind cannibals eating their war captives or beloved family members, so long as they don't spread insane diseases in the process (which they were, the REAL reason for halting cannibalism, nothing to do with morals). I mean, we as western nations wage wars in foreign countries, in which thousands of innocent bystanders are killed, and still firmly put ourselves in the 'morally OK' category. It's all relative.