Moral Theories (broadly)

[Seditious]

I know a few Theists pop in from time to time, and I think most of you consider yourselves Agnostic, me I'm an Atheist of course. I'm curious what your general moral stance is. Having different metaphysical stances probably tends us towards certain moral ones. I'm curious which you are, and why: Relativist, Pluralist, or Absolutist.


I'm not sure if we can say Moral Nihilism says 'don't bother even saying that much' to the Relativist, or is just a radical kind of Relativist, but anyway...

The Relativist of course says 'well you say murder is wrong, but that's just true for you'

The Pluralist says 'maybe how young you get pregnant, or what sex or species you have intercourse with is a private local matter, but murder and rape and so on are 'always' wrong, everywhere, and for everyone'

and the Absolutist tends to just give a shitload more universals than just those generally agreed on by most secular or religious people.

where do you fall in this spectrum? how do you feel about the validity of these categories? (have I outlined them with any important error?)

I'm not entirely sure what I'd call myself right now because too many people who call themselves Relativists confuse me about the position. so I guess I'm posting this for my own benefit

 

[speed]

I know a few Theists pop in from time to time, and I think most of you consider yourselves Agnostic, me I'm an Atheist of course. I'm curious what your general moral stance is. Having different metaphysical stances probably tends us towards certain moral ones. I'm curious which you are, and why: Relativist, Pluralist, or Absolutist.


I'm not sure if we can say Moral Nihilism says 'don't bother even saying that much' to the Relativist, or is just a radical kind of Relativist, but anyway...

The Relativist of course says 'well you say murder is wrong, but that's just true for you'

The Pluralist says 'maybe how young you get pregnant, or what sex or species you have intercourse with is a private local matter, but murder and rape and so on are 'always' wrong, everywhere, and for everyone'

and the Absolutist tends to just give a shitload more universals than just those generally agreed on by most secular or religious people.

where do you fall in this spectrum? how do you feel about the validity of these categories? (have I outlined them with any important error?)

I'm not entirely sure what I'd call myself right now because too many people who call themselves Relativists confuse me about the position. so I guess I'm posting this for my own benefit

Im confused by the thread; so confused, I have no idea what I am. A little of everything but an absolutist I suppose.

 

[MetalBooger]

Deontological and virture ethics is pretty much what i believe in. Of course you always have to make decisions based on consequences, so maybe also i like utilitarianism. But overall i have several basic rules that shouldnt be broken, but because they are often contradicted in the world, are impossible to to absolute, so virtue is the best. i take an appropriate model like the queen, napoleon, or Saint Francis of Assisi, and try and emulate their virtues, because i respect them.

Then you look at the moral foundations of many western countries, judeo, greco, roman, christian ideals, well thats all good but they always make exceptions to the rules, so i say fuck it, im gonna base my morals on a broad list of sources, and try and make good moral decision. Forgot golden rule, yea thats pretty good, its hard cuz our balls are so big, but sometimes fighting isnt the best, and its better to forgive and forget, or whatever, course that falls in deontological. This is ethics, but its pretty much the same as morals.

Mixtures are the best. Look at pizza, got a mixture of everything, and usually works out great.

 

[Blowtus]

I'm a relativist. I place a strong importance on the timelessness of ideas and works - things that may be stated as 'fact' in present societal terms may really only be 'fact' under the prevailing circumstances, and I think it is important to recognise what drives our ideas, beliefs, and perceptions.

To take the 'murder is wrong' example, I would put it more along the lines of 'you say murder is wrong, but your notion of wrong is based only on the current aggregate of opinion'

 

[Seditious]

I'm a relativist. I place a strong importance on the timelessness of ideas and works - things that may be stated as 'fact' in present societal terms may really only be 'fact' under the prevailing circumstances, and I think it is important to recognise what drives our ideas, beliefs, and perceptions.

To take the 'murder is wrong' example, I would put it more along the lines of 'you say murder is wrong, but your notion of wrong is based only on the current aggregate of opinion'

I myself am something of a moral subjectivist (individual relativism, emotivism, or whatever), as opposed to cultural relativist like you're talking about.

why do you think 'our nation says so' is any more valid than any of the other more absolute moral claims, and 'I say so' is less valid than 'our society says so'?

 

[Blowtus]

I don't think I said that? More saying that peoples actions and values need to be judged according to their environment, not in absolute terms. In modern day society it is only a few highly abnormal people that take pleasure in cannibalism, but amongst a cannibalistic tribe it is normal. I don't propose to judge either from on high, merely to recognise that the individuals of modern day society would very likely have been cannibalistic had they grown up in such a tribe. As someone who sees no cause for cannibalism I would be against their actions, but would recognise that the only true 'authority' I could have to influence them is power - very likely gained through a wider community that feels similarly to me in regards to cannibalism.

 

[Seditious]

I don't think I said that? More saying that peoples actions and values need to be judged according to their environment, not in absolute terms. In modern day society it is only a few highly abnormal people that take pleasure in cannibalism, but amongst a cannibalistic tribe it is normal. I don't propose to judge either from on high, merely to recognise that the individuals of modern day society would very likely have been cannibalistic had they grown up in such a tribe. As someone who sees no cause for cannibalism I would be against their actions, but would recognise that the only true 'authority' I could have to influence them is power - very likely gained through a wider community that feels similarly to me in regards to cannibalism.

oh ok. it sounded like you were saying the aggregate opinion of morality is is what should be taken as morality by those within. Sounds like we agree though, in your elaboration---you may stop me being a cannibal, I may be a cannibal in secret because I fear you, but neither of us thinks either of us is moral or immoral in what we're doing in defiance of the other's value judgments.

 

[Scourge of God]

The relativist doesn't say "Well, that's true for you," the relativist merely understands that the ethical value of any given action is positioned in relation to a host of other factors, including motivation, circumstance, outcome etc.

MetalBooger delenda est.

 

[Demiurge]

Non-cognitivism should be mentioned somwwhere here.

how do you feel about the validity of these categories? (have I outlined them with any important error?)

The way you've outlined them, the difference between the absolutist and the pluralist is a vague matter of degree. There's not a fundamental distinction between the two.

 

[infoterror]

I'm curious which you are, and why: Relativist, Pluralist, or Absolutist.

They're all the same thing. Relativists are apologists for those who do not conform to a moral standard, pluralists encourage an absolute moral standard of no moral standard (they're insane), and absolutists conform to a moral standard like relativists but without the touchy-feeling reacharound.

Morality is either inherent, or a control mechanism. My only morality is what's best for the whole. This means I have no problem machine-gunning sexual assault victims and orphans who are cutting down trees.

 

[CatwomanEarache]

I couldnt give myself a label or fall into one category, I think it would stifle the mind

 

[infoterror]

I couldnt give myself a label or fall into one category, I think it would stifle the mind

You don't have to give yourself the label. Analysis of your views will reveal it, and in my experience, the degree to which a person fits easily into a category is proportionate to how much they reject categorization.

 

[Seditious]

I couldnt give myself a label or fall into one category, I think it would stifle the mind

unless you hold contradictory views it shouldn't be difficult

 

[Seditious]

Non-cognitivism should be mentioned somwwhere here.

how would you explain the basis of that view?

The way you've outlined them, the difference between the absolutist and the pluralist is a vague matter of degree. There's not a fundamental distinction between the two.

indeed, that's the way it seems to me, I've never met a pluralist who was a relativist, i.e., not absolute about something, they're merely liberal about their absolutism, such that they want to see not one absolute view dominate, but to see them all try to agree and respect eachother on a variety of at least private issues (rather than, like, having sodomy become illegal again n the like).

does it mean something different as you understand it?

 

[Seditious]

The relativist doesn't say "Well, that's true for you," the relativist merely understands that the ethical value of any given action is positioned in relation to a host of other factors, including motivation, circumstance, outcome etc.

MetalBooger delenda est.

so he's essentially absolutist, but his commandments aren't so short and sweet?
e.g., 'thou shalt not kill', to a relativist is, 'thou shalt not kill the unwilling, or those without faculty to give consent, or civilians in a war, or soldiers with a hollow tip bullet, or if such force is not necessary for self-defense...' and is thus saying among other things, "it is absolutely wrong to kill soldiers a. with hollow tips, or b. after they've surrendered" rather than just saying 'well, that's our law, but if someone once did it, that doesn't mean they were immoral', is that what you mean? I mean, if you'd say 'well no, their society is a 'circumstance', and they were 'motivated' by thinking it was just, or duty,' aren't you just saying 'well that was their moral truth...' anyway?

 

[infoterror]

Morality is an advanced form of pretense, and the fact that no one can define it or agree on it in this thread proves that

 

[Seditious]

Morality is an advanced form of pretense, and the fact that no one can define it or agree on it in this thread proves that

what do you mean by pretense?

as I've said, I'm a subjectivist (I'm not sure if moral nihilist quite fits, I mean a nihilist would say there are no moral distinctions, where as I would say they're all equally bullshit, and I'm not sure if that amounts to the same thing), I don't believe morality is anything more than an exaggeration of social norms which has been harnessed as a tool of social control (like religion to what was once spirituality? I dunno, lol maybe eh), but yea, I'm not sure if you mean the same sorta thing, especially in calling it an 'advanced form'

can you expand on what you wrote there?

 

[Norsemaiden]

As a nihilist I consider cause and effect when deciding if an act is right or wrong. If an act has an undesired effect then it is wrong to do it.

Someone could be doing something that has the desired effect from their point of view, but from mine the effect is very undesirable.

In a sense this is relativist as far as that one man's desired outcome may be something I really don't want to happen and vice versa. But recognising this, doesn't mean I accept his point of view. I would tell him what he is doing is "wrong" or "immoral" in an attempt to stop him, or use non-verbal methods.

So "morality" is purely man-made (pretense)and all about directing things towards the outcome that the person deciding what is moral wishes to occur. The herd generally follow the morality as decided for them, even though the outcome is often entirely disadvantageous to them and their kind.

Nietzsche:

Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose!

 

[Seditious]

As a nihilist I consider cause and effect when deciding if an act is right or wrong. If an act has an undesired effect then it is wrong to do it.

what if something has plural effects? Being burnt is an undesired effect, but what if your kid was in a burning building, letting them burn would be an undesired effect. Which course of action is "wrong", saving them or not?

 

[Norsemaiden]

what if something has plural effects? Being burnt is an undesired effect, but what if your kid was in a burning building, letting them burn would be an undesired effect. Which course of action is "wrong", saving them or not?

In such a situation one must judge what action would bring the most desired effect. It would be worth a certain amount of burning to save an offspring that you had not written off as being worthless. In nature the most desired effect always comes down to the selfish gene (and its ability to motivate altruistic behaviour in those with the gene for altruism).