Moral Objectivism and Moral Relativism

[rageaholic]

You know, I've always found moral objectivists absolutely infuriating.  A lot of this has to do with fundamentalists being big defenders of objective truths that cannot be known.  And well, let's just say I'm not a fan of fundamentalists. 

The thing with fundamentalists are that they are convinced, no sure that they are right.  They will harp on about objective truths and how something can't be true for one person and not true for another.  They'll attack the notion of agreeing to disagree, using some ridiculous analogy comparing disagreeing on religion to disagreeing that gravity exists or that the stove is hot.  Basically, a lot of the arguments I hear for why their faith is right are based on proving the need for an objective truth. 

And yeah, if God exists, that means the atheists are wrong, just like how if God doesn't exist, the theists are wrong.  But here's the thing, we don't know if God exists or not.  No matter what side of the fence you're on, you have to admit that if God does indeed exist, God doesn't make himself known to mankind.  That doesn't rule out there being a God, but if you're going to claim that your objective truth exists, the onus is on you to defend it. 

That's where fundamentalists fail.  Most of the "proof" they have amount to flimsy apologetic arguments or personal antidotes of how Jesus changed their life.  It's not as obvious as something like gravity or the sky being blue.  It may be for the person with the spiritual experience, but from the outside looking in, I have no idea what you're talking about.  Why should I make a life changing decision based on something that anyone can claim? 

The same applies to moral objectivism, but even more so since no one can really claim that they have all the answers to every moral problem.  The moral objectivist sees things in an extremely unhealthy black and white, with no shades of grey.  Some go as far to claim that anyone who deviates even slightly from their moral code is some kind of relativist or anarchist, claiming that anyone who doesn't follow their rules to the letter are one step away from serial killing.  So just like with fundamentalists, they think they have the truth and you either agree with them 100% or burn in hell for all eternity.  But at the end of the day, they are only humans using arguments that anyone else can use to come up with a moral code.

But you know what?  Extreme moral relativists piss me off just the same.  I remember taking anthropology classes and hearing about how we can't say that any culture is right or wrong because we're looking at things from a "cultural" view.  Yes, they have even said that we can't judge cultures for sacrificing their children because we can't see things from their point of view.  And that's where I say screw moral relativism.  Yes, we can't objectivily prove that sacrificing children is wrong, but we can make a damn good argument against it (based on the obvious suffering it causes).  To not even try to determine if something is right or wrong is just as ignorant as claiming you have all the answers.

Okay, I rambled too long here.  TLDR: Moral objectivists piss me off with their black and white, my way or the highway mentality.  Moral relativists piss me off because they are willing to put human rights on the back burner for cultural traditions. 

[Søren]

This is why i just say "fuck you" and prance around with my moral nihilism

[Witchyjoshy]

One of the few cases where I can genuinely say I maintain a balance between two ideals and have it actually be a net benefit.

Some morality is absolute, such as equal treatment of sex, gender, and race, as well as the terribleness of murder, rape, and manslaughter.  Some morality is relative, and damned if my two hours of sleep can come up with an example.

Of course, there are people who would disagree on what morality I consider absolute, and what morality I consider relative.  I don't know what to say to that without sounding like an asshole, so I'll be an asshole.  Those people can kiss my fat ass.

[Sigmaleph]

The moral objectivist sees things in an extremely unhealthy black and white, with no shades of grey.

I think you're painting with too broad a brush. In my experience*, moral objectivists have no problem recognising shades of grey. Even saying that right and wrong are objective facts doesn't preclude recognising that they are complicated to know and in several situations one has to acknowledge there are too many complicating factors to be perfectly sure of one answer.

Of course there are extreme black-and-white types, as well. I'm not denying that. But your statement read like a description of moral objectivists in general, rather than a group within them.


*for context, I used to be a moral relativist, then a moral realist, nowadays I'm kind of on the fence.

[Ironchew]

I used to be a moral relativist back when I associated the term "objective morality" with divine command morality (which is no moral system at all, just a set of pronouncements about morals). I changed my mind recently and I reject the moral relativist position that there can be no objective framework for deciding right and wrong. I now hold the position that we make situational decisions about what is right and wrong within an objective reality, which means those decisions have objective consequences. Even if we do not know all the details of situational ethics, there are objective consequences to, say, believing drinking battery acid will cleanse you of toxic chemicals.

We make our own morals, but all of us are forced to agree on a few axioms (life is generally preferable to death, pleasure is generally preferable to pain, etc.) From there, we can get more specific and define morals based on evidence. We may not ever solve all of the grey areas of morality, but that doesn't mean an objective answer cannot exist.

[Meshakhad]

The moral objectivist sees things in an extremely unhealthy black and white, with no shades of grey.

I think you're painting with too broad a brush. In my experience*, moral objectivists have no problem recognising shades of grey. Even saying that right and wrong are objective facts doesn't preclude recognising that they are complicated to know and in several situations one has to acknowledge there are too many complicating factors to be perfectly sure of one answer.

Of course there are extreme black-and-white types, as well. I'm not denying that. But your statement read like a description of moral objectivists in general, rather than a group within them.


*for context, I used to be a moral relativist, then a moral realist, nowadays I'm kind of on the fence.

I'm a moral objectivist myself. What that means is that I believe that there is an objective right and wrong. I just don't necessarily believe that I or any other human being completely understands it. After all, I believe that morality comes from G-d, and humans are notoriously bad at figuring out what He wants. I know there are a lot of shades of grey, that other people disagree about morality, and that I myself may be wrong.

[rageaholic]

One of the few cases where I can genuinely say I maintain a balance between two ideals and have it actually be a net benefit.

Some morality is absolute, such as equal treatment of sex, gender, and race, as well as the terribleness of murder, rape, and manslaughter.  Some morality is relative, and damned if my two hours of sleep can come up with an example.

I feel the same way.  A lot of the arguments on morality come down to what constitutes morality.  A lot will agree that rape, murder, manslaughter, and anything that violates human rights are evil.  But then fundies come in and try to tell people that sex is evil 95% of the time, try to control people's life, tell them how to live, and take away the free will that God supposidly gave us. That is one of the main reasons I despise religion, it demands much from it's followers and gives little in return.  If you want to see immoral, just look at some of the quotes on the main page and you'll see how harmful religion can be. 

Of course, the extremist objectivists will say that how you "feel" or "think" is irrelevant, and the truth (their truth) is the only thing that matters.  Another aspect of them that makes me want to smack them silly. 

The moral objectivist sees things in an extremely unhealthy black and white, with no shades of grey.

I think you're painting with too broad a brush. In my experience*, moral objectivists have no problem recognising shades of grey. Even saying that right and wrong are objective facts doesn't preclude recognising that they are complicated to know and in several situations one has to acknowledge there are too many complicating factors to be perfectly sure of one answer.

Of course there are extreme black-and-white types, as well. I'm not denying that. But your statement read like a description of moral objectivists in general, rather than a group within them.


*for context, I used to be a moral relativist, then a moral realist, nowadays I'm kind of on the fence.

You're right.  I realized after I posted this that what I said about moral objectivists probably only applies to those on the extreme end of the spectrum.  I also realize that you can be a moral objectivist and not have such an authoritarian, anti human view of live (I knew a preist who was a moral objectivist, but was for human rights and equality). 

[majingojira]

You should be frustrated. A typical argument is either god exists or he didn't. As you said, there is no shades or gray or differing opinions. What they really mean, either God (by the way, it's always the Christian One, never Zeus or Marduk or Ra) exists AND he is also everything that they believe him to be, or he absolutely does not exist (in any form), and no other possible God exists either.

The first position is incredibly subjective. Not only do they only believe wholeheartedly that God exists, but also that they have attained a perfect understanding of what he is like, and what he wants. The fact that their christian neighbor might have a completely different view and might be correct is completely anathema to them. There are no shades of gray, no other possibilities

Maybe the Christian god does exist, but he's actually some deceiving alien messing with humans with his advanced technology, or any other possible scenario.

[RavynousHunter]

Of course, then you have the passage somewhere that amounts to "I, Yahweh, am your god.  Besides me, there is no god."  So, yes, according to their own book, their god must exist exactly as it says it does, or it does not exist at all.  The book itself allows for little interpretation in this matter.

[Ironchew]

You should be frustrated. A typical argument is either god exists or he didn't. As you said, there is no shades or gray or differing opinions. What they really mean, either God (by the way, it's always the Christian One, never Zeus or Marduk or Ra) exists AND he is also everything that they believe him to be, or he absolutely does not exist (in any form), and no other possible God exists either.

The first position is incredibly subjective. Not only do they only believe wholeheartedly that God exists, but also that they have attained a perfect understanding of what he is like, and what he wants. The fact that their christian neighbor might have a completely different view and might be correct is completely anathema to them. There are no shades of gray, no other possibilities

Maybe the Christian god does exist, but he's actually some deceiving alien messing with humans with his advanced technology, or any other possible scenario.

Which is why Sam Harris had a point when he said, "Atheists disbelieve in all the same gods [Christians] disbelieve in. We just go one god further.

When there is evidence that any god(s) exist, we can revisit that question.

[Lt. Fred]

A question: are we all utilitarians or are some of us Kantians? I'm personally a utilitarian, and I cannot see how an atheist could justify the Categorical Imperative. If anyone is a Kantian, could you explain to me how you square that circle?

(For those who are not aware, utilitarianism is a moral philosophy that judges good by the reasonable forseeability of the good done of an act. The CI is basically a list of bad acts that you must not do regardless of the consequences, even positive.)

[RavynousHunter]

I'm neither, I'm an ethical hedonist.

[Sigmaleph]

A question: are we all utilitarians or are some of us Kantians? I'm personally a utilitarian, and I cannot see how an atheist could justify the Categorical Imperative. If anyone is a Kantian, could you explain to me how you square that circle?

(For those who are not aware, utilitarianism is a moral philosophy that judges good by the reasonable forseeability of the good done of an act. The CI is basically a list of bad acts that you must not do regardless of the consequences, even positive.)

I'm a consequentialist. I prefer to avoid calling myself an "utilitarian" because people tend to assume utility=pleasure or happiness or similar, which I don't think is quite correct.

[Lt. Fred]

I'm neither, I'm an ethical hedonist.

Oh? How is that different?

A question: are we all utilitarians or are some of us Kantians? I'm personally a utilitarian, and I cannot see how an atheist could justify the Categorical Imperative. If anyone is a Kantian, could you explain to me how you square that circle?

(For those who are not aware, utilitarianism is a moral philosophy that judges good by the reasonable forseeability of the good done of an act. The CI is basically a list of bad acts that you must not do regardless of the consequences, even positive.)

I'm a consequentialist. I prefer to avoid calling myself an "utilitarian" because people tend to assume utility=pleasure or happiness or similar, which I don't think is quite correct.

Everyone seems to find a different way of not understanding utilitarianism, which always seemed pretty straightforward to me. The problem I've always had was people would refuse to understand the reasonably forseeable bit and insist on pretending I would blame someone for an accident. Which is, obviously, false.

[RavynousHunter]

To put it simply: ethical hedonism is doing what you will so long as you harm no one or infringe on their rights.

Then again, I hardly care what ethical philosophy I or anyone else ascribes to, I have far better things on which to expend my brainpower.  If you aren't an asshole, that's good enough for me.

[ETA]
And no, I don't have much of an idea what utilitarianism truly entails.  I only remember my girlfriend mentioning it a few times when she took a college ethics class as an elective.