Is moral relativism the result of a relative definition of person?

[Maxwell511]

I think I am the only Atheist I know that believes that there is a core source of morality, an objective morality if you will. It is not something I believe to be supernatural, I believe it is genetic.

I think that we are all programmed to "love" others and cannot act against them. I mean this literally, I do not believe that a person can harm another person without dehumanising them. Criminals, enemies, foreigners, people with different religions, people with different cultures, people we don't know are not really people in the eyes of some and therefore it can be "justified" to act against them. The moral relativism, to me, seems to occur in the definition of who is a person.

For example the abortion debate seems to revolve around whether a fetus is a person or a bunch of cells, the death penalty debate seems to revolve around whether the criminal is a person or a monster. In both cases it is recognized that it is wrong to kill a person, however to kill a bunch of cells or a monster is perfectly okay.

 

[cantata]

What about suicide?

 

[Isambard]

Moral relativism has to do with morality being subjective and contextually relative even within an agreed upon ethical model when put into practise.

Personhood is just another nail in its grave.

 

[ReverendDG]

i think you are misunderstanding how we evolved over time max, as a social species we survived mostly because we had the ability to empathize with other members.
most of our laws and morals revolve around this.

the reason moral relativism exists is purely because people have realized that, every group of people consider their rules absolute. its funny but i've never seen any society built on absolutes that work if you know they are not.

from seeing that not every group has the same morals makes it obvious that there are no absolute morals.
case in point, cannibals would absolutely see a problem with killing and eating their own group, but have no problem doing it someone else.
people a group doesn't care about is free game, its been like that since man has existed

now saying people reduce fetus to nonhuman is not the issue, its whether its a person,if it is a person, it has rights, but not to a woman's body any more than a person who is born
its true that people want to dehumanize criminals, but being someone who dehumanized another person, i don't see how a criminal can be considered a fellow person anymore

 

[quatona]

I think I am the only Atheist I know that believes that there is a core source of morality, an objective morality if you will. It is not something I believe to be supernatural, I believe it is genetic.

I think that we are all programmed to "love" others and cannot act against them. I mean this literally, I do not believe that a person can harm another person without dehumanising them. Criminals, enemies, foreigners, people with different religions, people with different cultures, people we don't know are not really people in the eyes of some and therefore it can be "justified" to act against them. The moral relativism, to me, seems to occur in the definition of who is a person.

For example the abortion debate seems to revolve around whether a fetus is a person or a bunch of cells, the death penalty debate seems to revolve around whether the criminal is a person or a monster. In both cases it is recognized that it is wrong to kill a person, however to kill a bunch of cells or a monster is perfectly okay.

I think that moral relativism simply attempts to do justice to the complexity of human affairs.

It´s logically impossible to keep up more than one absolute command - because if there´s more than one there can always be a scenario in which these commands can clash: Dilemmata.
And, even though often on a smaller level than killing and stuff, that´s what I find all ethical/moral questions to be: dilemmata. I find myself having to weigh up different ethical stances I hold. No matter what I do, it will result in harming someone. I find this to be a very frequent dilemma.


To this day I haven´t seen a single moral system that does not work upon relativism. Every moral system, even the strictest, is full of "unless´s".

"Self-defense" is an "unless" in regards to killing. Every "not murder" is an "unless" in regards to killing. "Consent" is a frequent "unless"
Many seemingly absolute commands have the relativity built into the term they operate with, like "stealing" for example.

And no, I don´t think your idea that people are required to deny someone personhood in order to harm or even kill them. For justifying the incarcaration of a criminal people usually don´t go so far to deny his personhood, neither do they when going to war. All they need for that is that they find themselves in a dilemma.

Personally, I am inclined to pick "don´t kill" as the one absolute - but then I see a lot of situations in which I can´t help but add qualifications to it.

Bottom line: I am willing to consider replacing my moral relativism as soon as someone presents a practicable alternative: a consistent model of moral absolutism. I´m not holding my breath, though.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think I am the only Atheist I know that believes that there is a core source of morality, an objective morality if you will.

I may possibly be another, depending on how you define "a core source of morality".

I don't believe that hard-wired morality carries its own ethical justification, so it is abortive as far as ethics goes. It begs the question of why one ought to behave according to one's hardwiring, assuming one even has a choice in the matter. And if it is just descriptive, not prescriptive, it is just sociology.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[cantata]

That's exactly it, Mark; I'm sure that there are biological reasons for our moral feelings, but that, in itself, is not a reason to act according to them.

 

[A2SG]

I think I am the only Atheist I know that believes that there is a core source of morality, an objective morality if you will. It is not something I believe to be supernatural, I believe it is genetic.

I think that we are all programmed to "love" others and cannot act against them. I mean this literally, I do not believe that a person can harm another person without dehumanising them. Criminals, enemies, foreigners, people with different religions, people with different cultures, people we don't know are not really people in the eyes of some and therefore it can be "justified" to act against them. The moral relativism, to me, seems to occur in the definition of who is a person.

For example the abortion debate seems to revolve around whether a fetus is a person or a bunch of cells, the death penalty debate seems to revolve around whether the criminal is a person or a monster. In both cases it is recognized that it is wrong to kill a person, however to kill a bunch of cells or a monster is perfectly okay.

I think you're oversimplifying things. If your analysis were the case, then no one would feel remorse for having killed someone. Everything would be perfectly justified, explainable and justifiable.

I know a woman who had an abortion about ten years ago. While she knows it was the best decision for her under the circumstances of the time, she still, to this day, regrets that decision. She didn't do it because she felt the fetus was a "bunch of cells", but because of circumstances. She doesn't consider her decision to be moral, or immoral, she did what she had to do, given her circumstances.

I'd say moral relativism is simply recognizing that the morality hinges on the circumstances surrounding an act, not the act itself. The act of killing, for example, can be considered moral under certain circumstances (war, self-defense, punishment for serious crimes, etc.) but not so under others.

And sometimes, a decision is necessary, regardless of the morality. A soldier during wartime may not feel he's doing the moral thing by killing another soldier, but he feels it's necessary. Perhaps he feels the cause is just, so any actions taken in pursuit of that cause, even those of questionable morality, are justified. Or maybe he sees it as self-defense, kill or be killed. Protect the homefront, and all that.

In the end, morality is about the situation you're facing. The actions you take may be justified, or even entirely moral, given other circumstances. Acts are just acts, until you taken them into context.

Or, put simply, ask yourself this: Ted kills Bill. Is Ted acting morally or not?

-- A2SG, what more information do you need to answer the question?

 

[quatona]

As a caveat I´d like to point out that it´s "objective vs. subjective" and "absolute vs. relative". Two entirely different questions that I´d prefer to not be lumped together.

 

[WhatThe]

What about suicide?

Interesting. You could probably argue the same for suicide, as many people who do commit suicide have such a sense of self-loathing or not-belonging - which could be translated as feeling less then human.

 

[Maxwell511]

What about suicide?

I have known people that have killed themselves and in my opinion that is the pinnacle of dehumanization of others. People that commit suicide generally don't ask others for their opinion on the subject cos others don't matter. They just do it and ruin the lives of those around them.

 

[quatona]

You seem to use "dehumanizing" pretty loosely.
To be honest, your approach here seems to be circular and lead nowhere. If not asking others is "the pinnacle of dehumanising others" in your opinion it appears to me that you mutually define "harming" as "dehumanizing" and "dehumanizing" as "harming". That way, your line of reasoning can indeed not be tackled.

Anyways, initially I thought you were using "not viewing someone as a person" or considering them "subhuman" in a bit a stricter sense and closer to the way such strong terms are usually use. "Not asking for their opinion" or not letting their opinion determine your actions is far from being covered by these terms, in their common usage, not to mention "the pinnacle" of it.

 

[Maxwell511]

Moral relativism has to do with morality being subjective and contextually relative even within an agreed upon ethical model when put into practise.

Personhood is just another nail in its grave.

What I am sort of saying though is that the subjectivism and contextualization of morals is due to ideas of personhood.

For example a man would defend himself and kill an attacker and consider that morally justified, because it is not a person it is an attacker.

All things even in a physical threat to ones safety, a man will act differently if attacked by a stranger than by a loved family member. In the man's mind it would be more immoral to defend oneself against a loved one with lethal force based on relationship or, in my view, the man's understanding of personhood of the attacker.

 

[Maxwell511]

You seem to use "dehumanizing" pretty loosely.
To be honest, your approach here seems to be circular and lead nowhere. If not asking others is "the pinnacle of dehumanising others" in your opinion it appears to me that you mutually define "harming" as "dehumanizing" and "dehumanizing" as "harming". That way, your line of reasoning can indeed not be tackled.

Anyways, initially I thought you were using "not viewing someone as a person" or considering them "subhuman" in a bit a stricter sense and closer to the way such strong terms are usually use. "Not asking for their opinion" or not letting their opinion determine your actions is far from being covered by these terms, in their common usage, not to mention "the pinnacle" of it.

I think I should have some artistic license and therefore phrase things whatever way I want.

Suicide victims before they die seem to start, in their minds, making caricatures of the people closest to them. They basically make everyone around them become not feeling people but cartoonish ideas of people. People that don't care if you are dead.

The reason I said that I think that suicide is the pinnacle of dehumanization is because it is. It is not the dehumanization someone you don't know, it is the dehumanization of the people you are closest too.

Stereotyping groups of unknown people is easy, stereotyping a close friend is a massive challenge.

They don't ask your opinion because that idea of yoú in their head has already told them "meh".

 

[Maxwell511]

I think that moral relativism simply attempts to do justice to the complexity of human affairs.

I study complexity professionally, not obviously such a vast system as human morals but still complexity.

Complexity originates in systems where the components have "core tendencies" but have limited degrees of freedom. A system where the components have infinite degrees of freedom cannot form any complexity.

To me moral relativism's attempt to do justice to the complexity of human affairs is comparable to the attempt of Zeus to do justice to lightening bolts. I can't prove it is wrong but I know it is not right.

 

[quatona]

I think I should have some artistic license and therefore phrase things whatever way I want.

Well, sure, whatever license you want.
It´s just that I wasn´t aware you were being poetic and initially misunderstood you, assuming you were using the words in their common meaning.

Suicide victims before they die seem to start, in their minds, making caricatures of the people closest to them.

Could you possibly be a bit more specific as to what the qualification "seem to" actually is meant to communicate? Is it telling me that this is an assumption of yours possibly based on personal anecdotal observations?
Are there psychological studies that suggest this interpretation? Statistics?

They basically make everyone around them become not feeling people but cartoonish ideas of people.

Previously you said the were making caricatures of them. Now you say that suicide makes others feel they are caricatures. Which is it? Or is it both?
People pretty close to me have committed suicide, and it didn´t make me feel like a caricature. Even if it had, my feelings would still be my making.
If I were to commit suicide I wouldn´t see any need to think of people as caricatures.
So I disagree with both options, even if accepting your liberal use of "dehumanizing".

People that don't care if you are dead.

Again: Where did you gain the knowledge as to what people who commit suicide think of their fellow beings? Is that pure speculation on your part, or can you provide anything to substantiate this assumption?
As far as I can see, someone who commits suicide in no way has to assume that the people around him don´t care whether he´s dead. The only conclusion I can draw is that their feelings aren´t so important to him that he lets them determine his decision.

By the same token I could posit that people who expect someone - just because they would prefer him alive - to stay alive although he has the desire to die "dehumanize" him and assume he has an obligation to conform with their wishes.

Stereotyping groups of unknown people is easy, stereotyping a close friend is a massive challenge.

Again: Are you simply making this up? Are you just assuming they stereotype people? Or is there something more substantial than that behind your claim?
If I´d want to end my life (which I consider a valid option sooner or later) I would be quite aware that some people will be very sad. There would be no need whatsoever to "stereotype" or "dehumanize" them. They´d be still individual people, I would know that they would be sad for individual reasons etc. I´d feel sorry for them, but I´d still say that this is my life and my death. It wouldn´t be like I didn´t think they´d care; it´s rather that I don´t feel responsible for their feelings when it comes to my life.
In fact, I would see the option that - despite all their grief, pain and sadness - they´d respect and accept my decision.
The way you reduce their possible reaction to "He is dehumanizing me. He is making a caricature of me. He thinks that I don´t care whether he´s dead." appears to be gross stereotyping on your part.

They don't ask your opinion because that idea of yoú in their head has already told them "meh".

I think it takes quite a bit of assumption to assume that someone´s suicide is based on his ideas of me. Personally, I´d think that he just doesn´t want to live anymore - and that´s his prerogative. I wouldn´t expect him to let my feelings determine his decision, in the first place.

 

[quatona]

I study complexity professionally, not obviously such a vast system as human morals but still complexity.

Complexity originates in systems where the components have "core tendencies" but have limited degrees of freedom. A system where the components have infinite degrees of freedom cannot form any complexity.

Interesting, but - sorry - I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

To me moral relativism's attempt to do justice to the complexity of human affairs is comparable to the attempt of Zeus to do justice to lightening bolts. I can't prove it is wrong but I know it is not right.

I´m afraid you´ve lost me completely here.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I think I am the only Atheist I know that believes that there is a core source of morality, an objective morality if you will. It is not something I believe to be supernatural, I believe it is genetic.

I think that we are all programmed to "love" others and cannot act against them. I mean this literally, I do not believe that a person can harm another person without dehumanising them. Criminals, enemies, foreigners, people with different religions, people with different cultures, people we don't know are not really people in the eyes of some and therefore it can be "justified" to act against them. The moral relativism, to me, seems to occur in the definition of who is a person.

For example the abortion debate seems to revolve around whether a fetus is a person or a bunch of cells, the death penalty debate seems to revolve around whether the criminal is a person or a monster. In both cases it is recognized that it is wrong to kill a person, however to kill a bunch of cells or a monster is perfectly okay.

What I've read of neuroscience indicates we are hard-wired to empathize with people who look like us and to fear those who don't.