Atheism, Slavery, And The Moral High Ground...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Does any atheist here see moral relativist as a derogatory label?

Only when it is bandied about by some here as an implied term of abuse.

However, moral relativism is once again a complex topic.

From the entry in Stanford. [That page then provides links to other related topics].


Moral relativism is an important topic in metaethics. It is also widely discussed outside philosophy (for example, by political and religious leaders), and it is controversial among philosophers and nonphilosophers alike. This is perhaps not surprising in view of recent evidence that people’s intuitions about moral relativism vary widely. Though many philosophers are quite critical of moral relativism, there are several contemporary philosophers who defend forms of it. These include such prominent figures as Gilbert Harman, Jesse J. Prinz, J. David Velleman and David B. Wong. The term ‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons. Sometimes ‘moral relativism’ is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them.

[...]

2. Forms and Arguments

In general, the term ‘relativism’ refers to many different ideas. For example, in anthropology it sometimes connotes, among other things, the rather uncontroversial notion that anthropologists should strive to be impartial and unprejudiced in their empirical inquires. However, in moral philosophy ‘relativism’ is usually taken to suggest an empirical, a metaethical, or a normative position. The empirical position is usually:

Descriptive Moral Relativism (DMR). As a matter of empirical fact, there are deep and widespread moral disagreements across different societies, and these disagreements are much more significant than whatever agreements there may be.

Sometimes what is emphasized is moral diversity rather than strict disagreement. DMR is often thought to have been established by anthropology and other empirical disciplines. However, it is not uncontroversial: Empirical as well as philosophical objections have been raised against it. Hence, it is one focal point of debate.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

[Machinist]

Right, you don't want to be portrayed as having a position that doesn't have a lot of thought and consideration behind it. No one wants to be made out to look gullible or dumb.

But it's still moral relativism. Now i'm trying to understand why moral relativism is such a bad thing.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Right, you don't want to be portrayed as having a position that doesn't have a lot of thought and consideration behind it.

Well that is my personal position. I cannot vouch for other people

But it's still moral relativism. Now i'm trying to understand why moral relativism is such a bad thing.

It is not necessarily a "bad thing" dependent upon the philosophical viewpoint.

As the Stanford entry notes, "it is controversial among philosophers and nonphilosophers alike" although "there are several contemporary philosophers who defend forms of it."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I think it would be helpful if those (e.g. Hypatia) who want to make a distinction between moral codes and ethical codes to define what they mean by each and how they see them as different.

I regret that there is no simplistic definition for either of these two constructs. I would also point out that within philosophy both ethics and morals/ morality are huge branches of that discipline.
https://plato.stanford.edu/search/se...query=ethics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

However, based on theStanford definition of morality:

"the term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people."

Based on the first definition i.e. certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or group, the behaviour for a Catholic priest [while premised on the ethical code of confidentiality in the confessional] might not be deemed morally acceptable within the wider society which considers murder to be a crime, if he withholds from the police the name of a murderer who has confessed their crime in the confessional.

Such a situation would present the priest with an ethical and moral dilemma.

Likewise the Mafia has an an ethical code of behaviour that includes the omerta, but is the omerta strictly moral when considered against the wider society's views on organised crime?

[Tassman]

I have no idea what you mean by the majority of Christians - did you take a poll?

The “majority” of the population in the USA accepted slavery for centuries –And the “majority” of the population was Christian.

Biology and selection are blind to moral truths or reality. They could care less whether genocide is moral or not.

Biology and Natural Selection ARE the origins of “moral truths” and “reality”. They are why we are what we are, namely social animals that instinctively value ‘reciprocity’ and ‘cooperation’. This is embodied in the Golden Rule as found in various forms throughout ALL societies in human history, because they provide a survival advantage.

Of course it predates Christianity - it would since all humans are created in the image of God. Have a God given moral sense.

No, the alleged divine “moral sense” is what humans attributed to the god they made in their own image. Our “moral sense” is instinctive and it originated via Natural Selection as a survival mechanism.

But humans are also cruel, genocidal, and selfish. Your human biology and natural selection at work.

Natural Selection predisposes humans to value cooperation and reciprocity. "Cruelty, selfishness and genocide" (which are equally common in religious societies as secular ones) are NOT valued.

[Starlight]

Does any atheist here see moral relativist as a derogatory label?

Yes, for starters it's very clearly intended derogatorily by theistic posters on this forum.

I'm just wondering why there seems to be a reluctance to acknowledge this, like someone is calling you a bad name.

a) I don't view myself as a moral relativist. If someone in a university philosophy class asked if I held that view, I would say no.
b) In the context of this forum, 'moral relativist' is viewed as a derogatory term, and more generally in the wider society it's probably viewed that way too among most groups.

[Machinist]

Natural Selection predisposes humans to value cooperation and reciprocity. "Cruelty, selfishness and genocide" (which are equally common in religious societies as secular ones) are NOT valued.

Until they are. And when that time comes, why would it be wrong?


And I understand that atheists have a moral sense. But that moral sense does not have a firm foundation. Axiomatically, it is built upon shifting sand.

[seer]

The “majority” of the population in the USA accepted slavery for centuries –And the “majority” of the population was Christian.

You don't know that - perhaps slavery did not sit well with the majority, after all most Northern states ended it (my state passed the Gradual Abolition act in 1784) and we finally had a war to end it. And it was only two centuries.

Biology and Natural Selection ARE the origins of “moral truths” and “reality”. They are why we are what we are, namely social animals that instinctively value ‘reciprocity’ and ‘cooperation’. This is embodied in the Golden Rule as found in various forms throughout ALL societies in human history, because they provide a survival advantage.

How are biology and natural selection the origin of moral beliefs and truths when they are blind to such things?

No, the alleged divine “moral sense” is what humans attributed to the god they made in their own image. Our “moral sense” is instinctive and it originated via Natural Selection as a survival mechanism.

All other species survive just fine without moral beliefs. So what is your point?

Natural Selection predisposes humans to value cooperation and reciprocity. "Cruelty, selfishness and genocide" (which are equally common in religious societies as secular ones) are NOT valued.

Cruelty, selfishness and genocide are valued by those who practice them. And who are you to say that they are wrong - especially if those behaviors help the group survive against competing groups?

[rogue06]

Only when it is bandied about by some here as an implied term of abuse.

However, moral relativism is once again a complex topic.

From the entry in Stanford. [That page then provides links to other related topics].


Moral relativism is an important topic in metaethics. It is also widely discussed outside philosophy (for example, by political and religious leaders), and it is controversial among philosophers and nonphilosophers alike. This is perhaps not surprising in view of recent evidence that people’s intuitions about moral relativism vary widely. Though many philosophers are quite critical of moral relativism, there are several contemporary philosophers who defend forms of it. These include such prominent figures as Gilbert Harman, Jesse J. Prinz, J. David Velleman and David B. Wong. The term ‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons. Sometimes ‘moral relativism’ is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them.

[...]

2. Forms and Arguments

In general, the term ‘relativism’ refers to many different ideas. For example, in anthropology it sometimes connotes, among other things, the rather uncontroversial notion that anthropologists should strive to be impartial and unprejudiced in their empirical inquires. However, in moral philosophy ‘relativism’ is usually taken to suggest an empirical, a metaethical, or a normative position. The empirical position is usually:

Descriptive Moral Relativism (DMR). As a matter of empirical fact, there are deep and widespread moral disagreements across different societies, and these disagreements are much more significant than whatever agreements there may be.

Sometimes what is emphasized is moral diversity rather than strict disagreement. DMR is often thought to have been established by anthropology and other empirical disciplines. However, it is not uncontroversial: Empirical as well as philosophical objections have been raised against it. Hence, it is one focal point of debate.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

Who is the author of that piece?

What exactly are their credentials?

What is the name of the book that it can be found in?

On what page exactly?

And which edition is that book?

Or did you just trawl the internet for something?


And Stanford was involved in a major admissions scandal recently so I guess that means we can now safely ignore anything put out by them now.




Did I do that right?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Who is the author of that piece?

What exactly are their credentials?

What is the name of the book that it can be found in?

On what page exactly?

And which edition is that book?

Or did you just trawl the internet for something?

If you want the citation for the author of that entry and any other information, try here . https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/e...ral-relativism.

Chris Gowans is, according to his webpage, a Professor of Philosophy at Fordham University in New York https://christophergowans.com/2015/5...wkg1qpvcs3toeo

[Sparko]

I regret that there is no simplistic definition for either of these two constructs. I would also point out that within philosophy both ethics and morals/ morality are huge branches of that discipline.
https://plato.stanford.edu/search/se...query=ethics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

However, based on theStanford definition of morality:

"the term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people."

Based on the first definition i.e. certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or group, the behaviour for a Catholic priest [while premised on the ethical code of confidentiality in the confessional] might not be deemed morally acceptable within the wider society which considers murder to be a crime, if he withholds from the police the name of a murderer who has confessed their crime in the confessional.

Such a situation would present the priest with an ethical and moral dilemma.

Likewise the Mafia has an an ethical code of behaviour that includes the omerta, but is the omerta strictly moral when considered against the wider society's views on organised crime?

So what you are saying is that you have no idea what the difference is between moral codes and ethical codes?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So what you are saying is that you have no idea what the difference is between moral codes and ethical codes?

Read what I wrote. Ethics and morality are both huge areas within the discipline of philosophy.

I would suspect [although I may be mistaken] that what you have in mind is metaethics as well as the specific studies of applied ethics. Metaethics is, to a large extent, the general studies that apply to how humans come to ideas concerning goodness and the right action; while the separate studies of applied ethics specialise in arranging, organising, and defining generally accepted beliefs about how people should behave and conduct their lives.

I recommend perusing the Stanford online Encyclopaedia. It provides some fascinating reading.

There is an old saying [I have no idea from where it originated] that philosophy asks questions that may never answered.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And Stanford was involved in a major admissions scandal recently so I guess that means we can now safely ignore anything put out by them now.

And once again we see the employment of a logical fallacy, to wit, the ever popular over-extended generalisation.

[Sparko]

Read what I wrote. Ethics and morality are both huge areas within the discipline of philosophy.

I would suspect [although I may be mistaken] that what you have in mind is metaethics as well as the specific studies of applied ethics. Metaethics is, to a large extent, the general studies that apply to how humans come to ideas concerning goodness and the right action; while the separate studies of applied ethics specialise in arranging, organising, and defining generally accepted beliefs about how people should behave and conduct their lives.

I recommend perusing the Stanford online Encyclopaedia. It provides some fascinating reading.

There is an old saying [I have no idea from where it originated] that philosophy asks questions that may never answered.

Again... According to YOU, what is the difference in moral codes and ethical codes? You keep trying to make a distinction in your use of the terms, but you can't seem to define the terms clearly.

[rogue06]

If you want the citation for the author of that entry and any other information, try here . https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/e...ral-relativism.

Chris Gowans is, according to his webpage, a Professor of Philosophy at Fordham University in New York https://christophergowans.com/2015/5...wkg1qpvcs3toeo

So who is the author? Why won't you list him/her/them? What are there qualifications? What are you hiding?

Did your internet trawling dig up the name of the book this was published in? How about the page numbers? And which edition?

And since Stanford was involved in a scandal aren't we supposed to summarily dismiss and disparage anything that comes from them?

Why do you keep avoiding this?