Moral and Epistemic Relativism

[Emmy]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. You make several good and interesting points.

On one reading, it seems to me that your first paragraph assumes what it seeks to demonstrate. The logic here seems similar to this: Morality does not exist except relative to human cultures. Therefore, morality is relative. If the aim here is to show that an act can be right or wrong only insofar as people judge it to be, I don't think the case has been made.

However, if the crucial point you make in your first paragraph is instead that particular moral codes, developed and upheld by particular cultures, must be remembered to be cultural products -and not, a priori, correct in their moral judgments - I'm with you entirely.

In your second paragraph you make several great points. One of which is that conventional codes of morality have often been used to oppress marginalized groups. What I take from this, though, is that not nothing is right and nothing is wrong, but rather that the codes used to brutalize those who are different simply have it wrong when it comes to evaluating morality; that these codes are wrong about right and wrong.

I would also like to point out that, implicit in your argument, I contend, is the notion that discrimination against target groups is a bad thing. (And yes, I certainly agree ) But what underlies that assumption if not a moral judgment? Isn't it the case that the tragic consequences you so rightly point out from the imposition of particular codes of conventional morality are to be avoided precisely because they are wrong?

I whole-heartedly agree with your last assertion, the point that we cannot assume that any particular agreed-upon moral code -e.g., conventional western morality, if there can be said to be such a thing - is correct. I think that that's the great insight behind relativism and I very much agree: We must not assume that familiar moral codes are correct. However, I don't think it follows from this that acts cannot be right or wrong. Rather, what I take from the idea is that we all have a responsibility to examine societal moral codes -especially those of our own society- with the utmost scrutiny.


Thanks again for the engagement. Very much appreciate it!

Emily

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

I disagree, what is morally "right" or "true" is entirely relative. Morality is a man-made construct and as such was moulded to whatever belief system it spawned from and, therefore, can only be "true" according to said belief system, but is by no means ultimately true (meaning it cannot exist without that system). Some morals are subjective according to culture or individual, however, others are more pan-human due to the very reason that they concern the survival of the species (a pan-human concern). Therefore, it stems more from the desire to survive (and the desire for those closest to ourselves to survive), a desire which exists in every other species.

I often find it strange the way people in marginalised communities cling to morality as though without it discrimination of marginalised groups would run rampant. I've actually found the case to be quite the opposite. Morality seems to have, at least partially, spawned discrimination in that it passes judgement (or worse) upon any act its own system deems as wrong. That act may be murder, or, on the other hand, it may be sex between two people of the same sex, or sex between two people of a different race, and so on and so forth. Oddly enough both sides, both the "bigots" and the "enlightened" seem to prefer to tout the other as undoubtedly immoral and their own perspective as undoubtedly moral. Why not use reason over moral codes? Who's morality is more moral and according to whom? An extremist who blows up a building or anything else is just as full of moral conviction as those who point at him as the epitome of immorality, the devil in disguise. What makes popular western or left-wing convictions more "true" than any other? Location? The mere fact that one happens to agree?

[adorable]

I really like this thread.

As I am reading and getting all scholastic (it's been a while) - I keep getting stuck on two things:

1. female castration
2. arranged marriage

I would like to say that I believe that cultural norms make things acceptable that are not acceptable within the confines of my society. But that just isn't true.

I am questioning whether it's more about how those in that society perceive the reality of their situations that changes how I feel about things or do I see it as absolute in it's wrongness and want to "save" people based on what I morally feel is right? Does one have to come first for me to be outraged?

For instance, I watch the tribal shows on the Travel Channel. Fascinating. As I'm watching that show I am not judging them. They do things and believe things to be true based on their society norms. I watch the show and the people in the tribes all seem to be happy with the way their life is....I don't sense that anyone there has a problem with their customs or rituals.

This is not true when I see things about female castration in Asia and Africa. I get outraged, and yet it is a social custom that tribes have practiced for years. I would never have known about the practice if someone hadn't spoken out against it. Would I be outraged if the women who are forced to go through it weren't outraged? If they went under the knife (or piece of glass or dirty can top ugh) willingly or happily even? There is no way to know since I wouldn't have known unless the victims spoke out in horror.

Arranged marriages happen on the tribal shows on the travel channel. Everyone seems happy enough. Some of the guys have multiple wives. I don't judge it. Yet, when I read about Subia Gaur who is 18 (& others like her) and fled for her life from an arranged marriage, I am outraged. So it can't be that I'm outraged about arranged marriages in general, I am outraged for those that are outraged...

lol I hope this makes some sort of sense, but the whole thing is sooo interesting. "Humans have a moral sense. They think they know right from wrong and therefore are able to do right from wrong." - Mark Twain.

[Massive]

I'm very interested in this topic, but I need to come back to post for real after I've had more sleep and been able to formalize my thoughts to the point where they make more sense.
Thank you for starting this thread Emmy!

[atomiczombie]

Finally, something I feel comfortable speaking to. There are a few threads going here on the planet that are so heated that I do not feel like throwing my hat in the ring would add anything constructive, but on this topic I have something to say.

I look at ethics and morality and the comparison of the two in terms of how the language is used. Context is always the key to meaning. The word "moral" can have different meanings depending on the way it is used and who is using it. The basic context of the use of the word moral is the evaluation of the principles of human action. Sometimes it is specifically used in a religious contexts, but sometimes it is used independently of religion. In the religious context, a deity or religious path (God, or Goddess, or buddhist principles, for example) is brought into the discussion. However, it is a kind of discourse that can be used by atheists as well, and even say, a Christian and an atheist can discuss what is right and wrong and be talking about the same thing.

To say that these two contexts of the use of the word "moral" are mutually exclusive and only one is correct is to fall into the fallacy of reductionism. Reductionism can be defined as the attempt to reduce all explanation and interpretation of experience into one conceptual or theoretical framework. It asserts its own point of view as superior to others. It selects certain aspects of experience from which to draw its conclusions while downplaying the importance of (or in some cases even ignoring) other aspects which do not as easily fit into its theoretical system. I believe that the context in which a term is used has a significant bearing on its meaning.

The word "ethics" is more often associated with the academic study of morality and moral principles. However, the two can sometimes be used interchangeably. To say something is moral, one can also say it is ethical. The nature of language is that it is sometimes, and even often times, not rigidly used in a consistent meaning, but loosely and fluidly related. So one can say that while the word "moral" and the word "ethics" or "ethical" do not always have the exact same meaning, they both have family resemblances. (See Ludwig Wittegenstein's Philosophical Investigations for my source.)

As for the subject of moral relativism, my perspective is that the context of an action is the key to determining whether an action is moral or not. However, this is not the same as relativism as it is often used, including how some have used it in this thread. For the purposes of this discussion, I will assign a particular meaning to the word "moral" which I find to be a common thread in its various uses: to be moral is to actively seek the good, happiness and well-being of others as much as I do my own. I include the concept of "as much as" here because I believe that fairness is a moral concept that is intertwined with the meaning of "moral".

And now to the meat of my argument! Although I believe that context is key in dertermining whether an action is moral, I do not believe that morality is relative in its nature. Here is an example to consider: A woman drives down a narrow street in a residential neighbor hood. A small child darts out into the street from behind a parked truck just as the woman in her car approaches said parked truck. There is not enough time for the woman to stop the car and avoid hitting, and ultimately killing the child. Consider scenario #1: as soon as she sees the child, the woman slams on her brakes in an attempt to stop her car, but to no avail and the child is struck dead. Scenario #2, the woman sees the child run out into the street in front of her but makes no attempt to stop her car and avoid hitting the child. In both scenarios, the result is the same. The child is dead. But is there a moral difference between the two scenarios? I say yes. The woman in scenario one demonstrated by her actions that she regarded the well being of the child by attempting to avoid the accident. In scenario two, the woman showed no regard for the child's well being by making no attempt to avoid harming the child. The woman in scenario one was more moral than the woman in scenario two. The intent of the woman in this example is the key to determining whether the action is moral, and not strictly the outcome.

I believe that there are actions in this world that are absolutely wrong in particular circumstances (taking into account the intent). And some actions are morally wrong in any context. Torture and rape come to mind here. Some may disagree with me, but my standard for morality is the regard for the well being of others. Determining what is the best action one can take to reach that goal can be very complicated. Many people can have a stake in different outcomes. War comes to mind when I think about this.

A moral relativist can say that kicking puppies isn't strictly right or wrong, but only in the context of the culture one is raised in. So some people enjoy kicking puppies and if that is a tradition in their culture, then it is not wrong. I say, kicking puppies is morally wrong, period. It shows no regard for the well being of the puppies. I am not a moral relativist.

You can agree or disagree with me. The concept of morality has more than one meaning depending on its context, and more than one standard by which actions are measured. I am only using one particular standard by which to make moral judgements. I realize that the word "judgement" is a loaded word, so I want to clarify that I am using it in terms of whether a particular action is moral, and not whether a person is moral.

I have done a lot of thinking about this over the years, and in my studies as a philosopher in college. I am open to criticism as long as it is respectful, and interested in this dialogue.

[betenoire]

I'm gonna dumb it down even further.

Now, we all agree that using a ladder to climb onto someone's balcony, steal their cat, and bring their cat home to live with you sounds like the wrong thing to do....right?

Just say that the owner of said cat had a long history of going out of town for weeks at a time and leaving the cat behind, that she had been gone for over a month this time, that the cat could be heard crying and was clawing under the door whenever someone walked down the hall, and the smell of urine and feces coming from the apartment was so bad that it could be smelled in the adjoining apartments. And to add to that several people from the apartment building had called the SPCA and all they did was leave notices on that person's apartment door demanding that she call them? THEN is it wrong to use a ladder to climb onto someone's balcony, steal their cat, and bring her home to live with you? Of course not.

Not that I've done that or anything. (The cat is fine, by the way. Although a little neurotic and clingy, and often breaks into the garbage can for food even though I feed her MORE than what she needs and she is now quite fat. I mean, um. What cat?)

But seriously, of course things like "right and wrong" are totally dependent upon circumstances. Stealing a necklace because you want it is bad, stealing a loaf of bread because your kid is hungry is not bad. Hitting someone over the head with a frying pan because you're annoyed is bad, hitting someone over the head with a frying pan because they are harming you is not bad.

[Emmy]

Great posts. Thank you for your contributions.

I love the distinction that those who have posted are drawing between two different ways in which context might be said to matter when we evaluate the morality of an act.

1. First, acts which share a name -stealing a cat, or hitting a child with a car, to use others' examples- should be evaluated very differently depending upon surrounding factors of both intent (illustrated in the child example) and outcome (illustrated in the cat example.) I totally agree! Sometimes, this is what people mean when they say that morality is context-dependent. (I think I might frame it a little differently, and say that these acts, in themselves, are inherently different across these conditions. But that is just a matter of framing, I think...)

2. At other times, when people say that morality is context-dependent, they mean something entirely different; they mean that an act (even when all the particulars of intents and outcomes have been well-specified) has no moral value in itself. Rather, things are right and wrong only insofar as people judge them to be so. It is this sense of context-dependent morality, and not the first, with which I disagree.

Best,

Emily