Moral Relativism -- I'm confused.

[LisaLynne]

Could someone please explain to me what people mean when they talk about moral relativism. Because I really just don’t get it. I'm out of touch or something.

Do they object to feeling that some “sins” are worse than others? For example, they seemed to be driven insane at the thought that some of us felt that Clinton’s lie about an extramarital affair of one degree or another was really a private matter and while not speaking to his merits as a husband, certainly wasn’t enough to warrant the brouhaha it spawned. Is this what they’re talking about? That a sin – any sin – murder, adultery, lying, cheating, chewing gum on Wednesday after five or whatever else they consider to be proscribed – is just as bad as any other?

Or are they worried that some of us tend to look at the circumstances surrounding the same “sin”. For example, are they objecting to the fact that some of us might deal less harshly with the proverbial thief who steals a loaf of bread to keep her family from starving than a rich kid who takes an old lady’s purse because his friends “dare” him to. Both have stolen, but one out of necessity and the other for a kick. Does it offend them that some people might view those two thieves differently?

So, what’s the deal? Either way, or whatever other way it is, I think this might be another element of conservatives’ (and other creatures’) absolute terror over any sort of ambiguity. It’s like they need these very, very, very specific little rules all spelled out for them and if anybody suggests that maybe those rules don’t work for everybody, their minds get close to blowing, so to prevent that, they have to let off the steam by getting all angry and yelling about “moral relativism” and how horrible that is. Because to start thinking differently would just be way too much. Which, granted, at that level, is quite the process, so I can give a tiny, tiny bit of sympathy to them there.

But, still, ... sigh ...

[SammyBlue]

1. Moral relativism is the opposite of absolutism

Basically, moral relativism says "as long as the wrong doesn't hurt another person, who cares?"

Addiction, adultery, homosexuality (if you few it at a "lifestyle," which I don't. . .it's an orientation determined at birth). Things like that. . .a moral relativism stance is it's a private matter, it's wrong, but it won't bring the end of the world.

An absolutist would say "it doesn't matter if it does or not, it's still wrong and I don't care about anything else.

Absolutism -- black and white.
Moral relativism -- shades of gray.

Hope that helps.

[jshafted]

8. I think what you are describing

is closer to Moral Pluralism, as I un destand it Moral Relativism says that morals are relative to a culture or a person, thus a true Moral Relativist would be unable to condemn on a moral grounds the Nazi's for the Holocaust because their society said that it was morally alright. Moral Pluralism on the other hand does recognize a rational moral base, but that on top of that different Mores exist, and as long asx they don't hurt anyone they are OK.

[PassingFair]

10. How does it differ from

"situational ethics".

Many of the pukes in my office cheat, lie, and steal. As long as they are not called out (hell, most of the time, they're REWARDED) they feel they are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong.
Amazing.

[acmejack]

2. Here is a little about it. Very hard to encapsulate!

Moral Relativism - What's It All About?
http://www.moral-relativism.com/ space.

Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."

[hfojvt]

9. in other words it is not about a lack of grays

Under moral relativism I can believe that black is white which is different from saying that there are shades between pure black and pure white, or that there might be situations when white might be the right thing to do. Thus the words right and wrong are basically meaningless.
It seemed to be widely believed by college freshman when I was trying to teach them from 1988-1991, and it also seems to be the philosophy of this Bush administration as they feel they can make their own reality. WMD in Iraq - "is true for me, if I (Bush & Co) believe it."

[Baconfoot]

3. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good entry on this

Here is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on
Moral Relativism.

This is actually a pretty good source for getting a grip on terms in philosophy at an introductory level.

A number of different types of positions are discussed in the above article.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. It's mainly used as a buzzword

When used by conservatives, it means "whatever we don't like".

If I were you, I would stop wasting time trying to parse it out, and look for ways to make the Republicans/Conservatives cry.

--p!

[susanna]

13. Well, now - your post makes mine moot.

I think you have it nailed down. I just didn't know how to say it so concisely. Note to self: back to the drawing board...

[applegrove]

5. Hope this helps! n/t

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1834767&mesg_id=1834767

[PassingFair]

6. Well Lisa, that's a relative question!

Democrat refuses to cop to illicit blowjob = Moral relativism

Republican gives wife STD after dalliances with Thai Hookers = Mitigating Circumstances

Get it?

Poor black teen has child out of wedlock = Net result of Moral Relativism

Wealthy white teen has child out of wedlock = Net result of "mistake"

There are ALWAY mitigating circumstances when rich righties fuck up. My uncle was a toss pot, his family called him "difficult". His kids all took drugs and totaled cars, they had "adjustment difficulties".

Oh, and ALL their taxes go to support "welfare queens and junkies".

:puke:

[meow2u3]

15. Don't forget the "youthful indiscretion" excuse

When a poor young man smokes weed, terrorizes the block with his fellow gangbangers, and/or fathers a kid out of wedlock, that's because that kid is a dangerous criminal.

But when a rich Repuke kid snorts coke, terrorizes the entire city--not just the neighborhood--with his rich daddy's gangster friends, and breaks up other couples' marriages, that's just "youthful indiscretions", even when they're committed by "kids" as old as 45!

[Sabriel]

7. Moral relativism to me means perspective taking

Many of us, for example, can understand why Iraqi citizens might not appreciate our presence in their country and would try to fight back. My absolutist acquaintances, OTOH, only see one side... that those same people are terrorists. Our ability to perspective-take is deemed moral relativism.

[Inland]

11. No, that's not it.

The "relativeness" comes not from the distinction between sins, but the difference in perspective: that is, that you have a set of morals based on how you were raised, and I have another, and both are as equally valid relative to the other.

Perhaps the easier task is to contrast moral absolutism. That says that there is a defined morality that is as valid for you as it is for me, even if you, or both of us, or even all people, don't accept it. That's because it's set by god or nature or some other force that is greater than individual belief. It's applicable to everyone, regardless of culture, religion, background, etc. It doesn't evolve, or change with time.

Even a moral absolutist, therefore, can see the relative culpability of the person who steals vs the person who must steal to survive. The distinction is that the culpability is determined by appeal to supposedly timeless fixed morals.

You can see immediately why moral relativism is despised by a religious person who sees rules provided by an omniscient Deity. But most nonreligious people don't exactly embrace moral relativism in its whole, either, believing that human nature or something sets standards that are applicable or should be made applicable to everyone.

Liberty in a democracy means that even if there is a set of moral absolutes out there, we might not know what they are or we might not agree on them. After all, the existence of an absolute doesn't mean it's known. Therefore, if you and I both believe in absolute morals, but are unsure of what they are in a particular circumstance, then what? Or in comparing them note that your absolute standards are different from mine, then what? What we do is live in that world of toleration and accomodation that looks like relativism but isn't. That's why the religious love of moral absolutism is dangerous for democracy--it tends to believe that tolerance and uncertainty means an abandonment of the principle of absolutes.

[susanna]

12. Great post.

I have often thought that it all this mess is EXACTLY about so-called conservatives' intolerance of ambiguity.

They seem to see the world as completely black/white, devoid of any color or gray. I cannot imagine that sort of symbolic (another bugaboo for them) colorblindness, myself.

To me, what you are talking about: stealing out of necessity vs. stealing for a whim leads me to the idea of "proportionality" of a crime. Which, if I am not mistaken, is somewhat built into our legal system. That has to have the black-and-whiters fuming...

edited to add info

[OHdem10]

14. Oh that sticky s"moral relativism"

always get's some peope's ire up and most especially Pope BenidictXVI.
JPII found it most vexing.

Here goes. First, to understand why Moral Relativism creates a stir
one needs to go back to time of the Enlightenment and the introduction of secularism. Secularism as it developed produced more ways of looking at and thinking about life. Such important topics as formation of conscience, freedom of conscience were welcomed in some areas and were threatening to others.

There is a Fundamentalist Strain which runs through all three of
the Great Religions. These groups found dealing with the Enlighment
a little more than they wished to chew. In their view Secularism and its by-product Moral Relativism are dangerous. The very idea that people can form their own conscience.---Why--everthing will become Relative.We Godfearing Bible Literalists know there is a Right and A Wrong.In other words Absolutism is threatened. In this thinking there are no extenuating circmstances.

I think most of us believe the circumstances surrounding an act do
have bearing and should be taken into account. NOT the Absolutist...
this is coddling and making excuses. This why a tough Law and Order
Stand appeals to many Fundamentalists.

In the 60s and 70s this was part of the basis of the cultusre war.

This is why they yell Liberals have no Core Values. We have plenty
of core values. We Simply cannot blindly see in Black and White.
Life cannot be lived in Black and White. Life presents extenuating
circumstances which we believe must be considered. Liberals see
thkose Shades of Gray. Some can deal only in Black and White.

[LisaLynne]

16. Thanks, everybody!

Really -- you helped me solidify things in my mind. I really appreciate it!! I'm off to kick some people in the head -- metaphorically, of course. ;) I'm sure it's morally excused ...