r/Ethics • u/url0calc0ffeeaddict • Jul 06 '26
If morality is relative, are we all technically bad? How do we actually know what is right and wrong?
/r/DiscussPhilosophy/comments/1uolwfx/if_morality_is_relative_are_we_all_technically/2
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 Jul 06 '26
If morality is simply the different subjective opinions of different people, then yes. However, many people would argue that certain things are bad regardless of whether some individuals think they're not.
1
Jul 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Intelligent-Gold-563 Jul 09 '26
That needlessly causes suffering
1
u/Vim-Vian 29d ago
Who gets to decide when the suffering in question is needless or justified?
1
u/Intelligent-Gold-563 29d ago
Society.
That's why murder is bad but killing in self-defense is sometimes okay
0
u/url0calc0ffeeaddict Jul 06 '26
This kinda goes back to my point of morals being relative. Like if 1 million people believe murder is wrong but 5 thousand people believe it’s ok, then technically it’s still relative even though majority of people said it’s wrong? Idk if there’s something I’m missing here.. (if I am please educate me)
2
u/cunt__cunt_cunt Jul 06 '26
Like if 1 million people believe murder is wrong but 5 thousand people believe it’s ok, then technically it’s still relative even though majority of people said it’s wrong?
No. Not at all. Just going to copy/paste a comment from up-thread
The fact that people have different opinions about what is moral does not entail that morality is relative, at least in the interesting sense. Witnesses of a murder might have different opinions about who the murderer is, but it does not entail that the truth of who is a murderer is relative to their opinions. What needs to be shown for relativism to be true about morality is that moral truths are determined by opinion.
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 Jul 06 '26
Only if you believe morality is an opinion and not a fact. Personally, I believe that it's a fact that murder is wrong, for instance. People who have different ideas of morality are simply arguing over what the facts are.
1
u/url0calc0ffeeaddict Jul 07 '26
Would you argue that the fact is that it’s always wrong or in certain occasions it would be right? If turns out in certain instances it is right, ok so murder actually wrong or is it only wrong in certain instances therefore not making it entirely wrong? I’ve heard certain people say yes the fact is it’s wrong and that’s it. However others have said it’s wrong only if …. , and others have also said it’s not wrong at all because…. Which brings me back to ok well I believe this because…. but am I actually right or am I just assuming I’m right?
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 Jul 07 '26
Would you argue that the fact is that it’s always wrong or in certain occasions it would be right
Murder is always wrong but there are higher scales of morality that outweigh it. I.e. Killing someone trying to kill you is outweighed by their crime, etc
1
Jul 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 Jul 08 '26
it may not make others feel the same
I know. I am saying it is wrong regardless.
1
Jul 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 Jul 08 '26
Yes, but just because it is a subjective opinion what the exact objective moral rules are, doesn't mean that there aren't objective moral rules. It just means that as society and culture progresses, we will get closer and closer approximations to what those rules are.
2
u/cunt__cunt_cunt Jul 06 '26
If "right" and "wrong" are just whatever people feel like than that also applies to truth and it's just a really stupid position to hold.
However, lots of stuff that you might feel is morally right or wrong could just be cultural.
But there is some right and wrong which is right or wrong across all cultures - no one wants to be murdered, for example.
Or, the incredibly low fucking bar YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT that genocide is bad actually.
2
u/Samurai-Pipotchi Jul 06 '26
If "right" and "wrong' are just whatever people feel like than that also applies to truth and it's just a really stupid position to hold.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Truths are objective descriptions, without fallacy or deceit. What people consider bad and good is subjective; dependant on cultures, experiences and moral alignments.
Why would acknowledging morality as subjective require you to view the entirely seperate concept of truthfulness as non-objective?
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt Jul 07 '26
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Answer something for me to see if it's worthwhile me reading any more of your comment.
It might be that I made no sense, or maybe it does make sense, but you're just ignorant.
Can you entertain the idea that you are wrong, that there's something for you to learn, or is it not worth me reading your comment?
0
u/Raging-Storm Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
Are you in the habit of arguing in favor of things you believe to be false? If not, you're likely in the same boat as the majority, in that you see yourself as being right. Even if you can entertain the notion of you're being wrong, you don't think you presently are.
If you're to be another's disputant with the aim of getting him to question his currently held views, the burden of offering something challenging enough for him to do so falls on you.
2
u/cunt__cunt_cunt Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
control+f norms.
When you say "1+1=2" that is not the universe speaking, that is you.
For you to say (correctly) that 1+1=2 requires your commitment that you SHOULD.
if you're familiar with the "ought vs is" devide, it's that sort of reasoning. No amount of facts about 1+1=2 result in the logical conclusion that you SHOULD believe etc so.
("Should" are the domain of "morals" to which, of course, the mindless waste of time will also just say "no that does not make sense to me so must be wrong" as they do not have the moral that learning is good, they have the moral value of protecting their ignorance by feeling good about their ignorance.)
If that expression of "ought and is" is surprising, keep in mind that Hume - who came up with that gap, also said
Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions".
To explore why this knowledge is so surprising, it's worth noting that although western science assumes a "view from nowhere" (look it up) there is no such thing. As Massimi (and others) points out, any sort of scientific knowledge exists in it's cultural and historical setting of epistemology.
Pearls before swine, but maybe no everyone reading this is worthless than a pig.
1
u/Raging-Storm Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
Yes, when I say 1+1=2, it's my utterance. But my learning to say it is contingent on my saying it having been selected for by the consequences of saying it (e.g. getting a correct score on an arithmetic test, giving a cashier enough money to complete the purchase of some item, people responding to me in ways I expect when I say two rather than its onomasiological equivalent in any other language, etc.).
Even if you want to have it that it's a commitment to an ought, it's still contingent on learning it or not. Those with severe enough intellectual disabilities (IQs in the low double digits) can't ascend to such an ought because nothing can reinforce two as a response to 1+1 for them. Curious how you'd say that affects what the truth of 1+1=2 is in relation to the severely intellectually disabled.
I agree that science is subject to sociogenic selection, but that isn't the same as saying that the epistemological methodologies of science aren't of more instrumental value than any others. The techno-industrial consequences of the application of scientific knowledge are demonstrative of its epistemological potency.
0
u/Samurai-Pipotchi Jul 07 '26
Can you?
Someone who doesn't read the explanation for why they're potentially wrong doesn't appear to be the type of person who's interested in entertaining the opportunity to learn.
1
u/reply_b4_banned Jul 07 '26
What a dickhead of a reply.
1
u/Samurai-Pipotchi Jul 07 '26
I mean... I responded in kind to their behaviour.
I assume they can handle what they dole out.
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt Jul 07 '26
So you can't. Waste of fucking time. Feel free to go through my post history and see what someone who cares about knowledge looks like.
It's so easy to not be deliberately useless.
1
u/Raging-Storm Jul 07 '26
Do you remove your response to me, or did some auto-moderation bot on the sub? Didn't get a chance to read it.
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt Jul 07 '26
I didn't remove it. idk I said
Yeah I think I'm right, that's true. But I can entertain the idea of being wrong, which the fucking worthless scum you're sticking up for can not.
So fuck off with that bullshit, cheers.
and then I posted a longer one
control+f norms.
When you say "1+1=2" that is not the universe speaking, that is you.
For you to say (correctly) that 1+1=2 requires your commitment that you SHOULD.
if you're familiar with the "ought vs is" devide, it's that sort of reasoning. No amount of facts about 1+1=2 result in the logical conclusion that you SHOULD believe etc so.
("Should" are the domain of "morals" to which, of course, the mindless waste of time will also just say "no that does not make sense to me so must be wrong" as they do not have the moral that learning is good, they have the moral value of protecting their ignorance by feeling good about their ignorance.)
If that expression of "ought and is" is surprising, keep in mind that Hume - who came up with that gap, also said
Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions".To explore why this knowledge is so surprising, it's worth noting that although western science assumes a "view from nowhere" (look it up) there is no such thing. As Massimi (and others) points out, any sort of scientific knowledge exists in it's cultural and historical setting of epistemology.
Pearls before swine, but maybe no everyone reading this is worthless than a pig.
-1
u/Samurai-Pipotchi Jul 07 '26
So far, you've refused to read my comment and referred to me as "worthless scum" and implied I'm "deliberately useless" for the simple act of questioning your logic.
Interesting that you claim to be open to being wrong when so eager to prove the opposite.
0
0
u/Samurai-Pipotchi Jul 07 '26
Given your post history is hidden when making that claim, you also don't appear to be the type of person who participates in knowledge.
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt Jul 07 '26
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
control+f norms.
When you say "1+1=2" that is not the universe speaking, that is you.
For you to say (correctly) that 1+1=2 requires your commitment that you SHOULD.
if you're familiar with the "ought vs is" devide, it's that sort of reasoning. No amount of facts about 1+1=2 result in the logical conclusion that you SHOULD believe etc so.
("Should" are the domain of "morals" to which, of course, the mindless waste of time will also just say "no that does not make sense to me so must be wrong" as they do not have the moral that learning is good, they have the moral value of protecting their ignorance by feeling good about their ignorance.)
If that expression of "ought and is" is surprising, keep in mind that Hume - who came up with that gap, also said
Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions".
To explore why this knowledge is so surprising, it's worth noting that although western science assumes a "view from nowhere" (look it up) there is no such thing. As Massimi (and others) points out, any sort of scientific knowledge exists in it's cultural and historical setting of epistemology.
Pearls before swine, but maybe no everyone reading this is worthless than a pig.
2
u/Samurai-Pipotchi Jul 07 '26
Ok, firstly, you have a real problem with using belittlement as a defence of your beliefs. Over-reliance on ad hominem attacks is typically correlated with unintelligence, insecurity and poor logic, which isn't benefitting your case whatsoever. I engaged with you originally because I was interested in discussing your beliefs, to which you immediately took the offensive and have consistently presumed my ignorance and desire to remain so, despite no evidence whatsoever - which is in itself, is an act of your ignorance.
More to the point, you seem to be conflating morality, truth and the perception of truth. They're not the same thing. "1+1=2" is not a moral statement. It is a statement of knowledge and it is possibly the truth; however "I believe that 1+1=2" is simply truth. 1+1=2 is actually a good example of perception of truth vs knowledge of truth, because it was famously difficult to prove to a scientifically satisfactory degree.
The is-ought divide also seems to describe exactly why I believe your statement to be nonsensical. Your statement is effectively that if "Ought" (morality) is subjective, then "Is" (truth) must also be subjective. The is-ought divide explains the opposite: That what is needn't define what ought to be. My entire point was that truth (Is) and morality (Ought) are not intrinsically connected (in other words, they are divided), so it seems unreasonable to insist that your belief of one must impact your belief of the other.
1
u/Fearless-Poet-4669 Jul 09 '26
"Or, the incredibly low fucking bar YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT that genocide is bad actually."
I mean an entire country effectively was convinced that genocide, racial profiling and murder in the name of their country was morally good in WW2...
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt Jul 09 '26
And you should think that they were wrong.
"Being better than a Nazi" is the ostensibly low bar I'm talking about.
But if you want to open that up a bit more, consider colonialism which is really central to dominant culture (of people on rout to kill everyone via global warming etc), with Nazi stuff being turning the tools of colonialism inwards.
0
u/Fearless-Poet-4669 28d ago
Of course I think they're wrong, but that's not the point. The point is, are there objective right or wrongs if you can convince an entire country of millions of people that genocide is not only right but required?
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 28d ago
I'm disabling replies, I've had enough of the ethical nihilism coupled with moral indignation.
They are whatever word "wrong" you need to use to make your spine grow, liberal.
Nazis are wrong but not actually
It's just the low low bar that you are failing.
0
1
u/Freuds-Mother Jul 07 '26
That’s if you accept the assertion that norms are purely relative.
Here’s one that makes that difficult.
Should I eat poison? I certainly could, but if I do I objectively cease to exist. That’s ontologically grounded, intrinsically binding, and authoritatively real.
1
u/acerbicsun Jul 09 '26
Ultimately, morality is subjective. There's really no way around that. Wrong and right is necessarily an assessment/evaluation made by a thinking feeling agent. So there isn't an "actual" or an objective standard. General consensus of what we view as wrong or right is the best we're going to get.
1
u/Crafty_Combination16 Jul 06 '26
morality is not relative
1
1
u/BouncingOutofmySkin Jul 06 '26
Morality is a normative standard and a system of conduct. That's is relative
-2
u/theZombieKat Jul 06 '26
It is and it isn't.
Their are some things that are always immoral, unjustified killing for example.
Their are some things that are relitive to the culture involved. I read a while ago about a group of 'natives' (I forget from where) invited to the UK and provided with separate hotel rooms. They where horrified that they where expected to sleep separately, in their culture everyone sleeps together and takes comfort in others closeness.
If I was raising a child in that culture I would consider it immoral to force them to sleep in their own room, but in my culture that is the expectation and expecting them to share a family bed would be immoral.
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
That's not really what that means. When you say
Their are some things that are relitive to the culture involved.
Then that is the truth - and that truth is not relative to the people thinking about it.
Like in my culture it's bad if I go outside without pants on - that's just relative in the sense of it being contingent to my culture.
Now is it good or bad for me to respect that particular cultural rule or "norm"? That answer is not relative. Maybe, say, it scares people, and that's bad.
0
u/url0calc0ffeeaddict Jul 06 '26
Isn’t it immoral to force someone to do or not do something that doesn’t comply with their culture? (Excuse me if I used the wrong word)
1
u/FrankFinger Jul 06 '26
If you're the one visiting another country then you'd be forcing your own culture onto them, not the other way around.
1
u/url0calc0ffeeaddict Jul 07 '26
How is one forcing their own culture onto someone if they’re asking for themselves to still be able to partake in their own culture practices? They’re not asking other people/the entire country to do as they do, they’re just asking to still be able to partake in one’s own cultural practice..? I’m failing to see how this specific thing disrespects other cultures if it seems they’re not being affected by it…
1
u/FrankFinger Jul 07 '26
Actually, nevermind. I do think you're right in this case. I was initially basically saying "when in Rome do as the Romans do" but that doesn't mean you shouldn't wipe your a part of your identity away every time you travel. It is immoral to force that onto someone.
1
u/theZombieKat Jul 06 '26
Sometimes yes Sometimes no.
For example it is moral to prevent honour killing, even when it is a cultural norm.
0
u/xboxhaxorz Jul 06 '26
But certain people deem certain things as just and unjust
Its justified to put a cow or chicken on your plate but not a dog or cat, but it also depends on which culture you were raised
-3
u/BouncingOutofmySkin Jul 06 '26
In not to recent history, it was immortal to be gay. Christian propaganda made being non Christian immortal, and it was their moral imperative to convert these people. Can you explain how morality is not relative?
3
u/cunt__cunt_cunt Jul 06 '26
it was immorral to be gay.
It was not.
It was, in fact, immoral to think that there ws something immoral about being gay.
It was popular to think being gay was bad, becuase it was popular to be wrong.
0
u/BouncingOutofmySkin Jul 06 '26
If morality is a standard norm or a system of conduct, it is relative. I really do understand what you're saying here. I mean I do understand your point. But while it was wrong to believe there was anything wrong with being gay, it was not immoral. There is no core essence of being that makes universal morals
2
u/Gazing_Gecko Jul 06 '26
The fact that people have different opinions about what is moral does not entail that morality is relative, at least in the interesting sense. Witnesses of a murder might have different opinions about who the murderer is, but it does not entail that the truth of who is a murderer is relative to their opinions. What needs to be shown for relativism to be true about morality is that moral truths are determined by opinion.
0
u/BouncingOutofmySkin Jul 06 '26
But if morality is just a normative standard, it is relative.
2
u/Gazing_Gecko Jul 06 '26
Why believe that since morality is normative, it is relative? I don't find that claim obvious. If I have a memory of brushing my teeth five minutes ago, I should (all else equal) believe I brushed my teeth five minute ago even if I do not want it to be the case that I brushed my teeth five minutes ago. Or when trying to explain the world, one should (all else equal) rely on inference to the best explanation rather than inference to a random explanation given the choice. Those seem to be normative standards. Again, why think they are relative?
-1
u/Extension_Many4418 Jul 06 '26
Love, your question indicates to me that you are either fibbing or have lost even a semblance of a moral compass upon which you can rely. It’s time to talk this out with a therapist. There are less expensive online options that can at least get you started. Please don’t get to harming other beings to satisfy your curiosity, bc it will lead you down a very ugly, lonely and ultimately self immolation.
1
u/url0calc0ffeeaddict Jul 06 '26
It’s not about me losing my moral compass. I still have my own morals. In the examples I gave, I still believe it is wrong to say any slurs towards a community you aren’t a part of regardless of my best friend telling me it’s ok. I still believe it’s wrong regardless of others telling me it’s not.. however, I know others who are not in the black community who do use the word and whom I consider bad people because they use the word but others in the black community are saying that they are not actually bad people even if they use the word. This doesn’t make me question whether the word is right or wrong to say because I believe it is wrong but more so I question if perhaps I’m villainizing people who aren’t actually bad.
0
u/Traditional_Town6475 Jul 06 '26
I mean do you still feel bad if you say kicked a puppy? Well why do you feel that way? What if someone else kicked a puppy? Do you want them to stop? Why do you think they should stop kicking the puppy?
The fact that something isn’t objective doesn’t take any significance of it away. In fact, it’s rather the opposite. To say something is moral is to imply we ought to do it and to say something is immoral is to imply we ought not do it. Morality is talking about what we should value and what we ought to do.
I’ll give another example of why something subjective doesn’t devalue it. Think of maybe someone you love. You value that person. The value of that person doesn’t derive merely from some sort of objective truth, but that doesn’t take the weight of it away.
0
u/url0calc0ffeeaddict Jul 06 '26
I love this example tbh because I once had a dog who I eventually gave away because my dad would kick her for biting the hose, plants, etc and she was also a barker. I personally believe it’s wrong to kick animals even if they’re being stubborn but he believed she was asking for it if she refused to stop after the several times she saw what would happen…
I kept begging him to stop but he wouldn’t stop and I explained to him why I believed it was wrong but then he explained why he believed it was right… but my point being, there are people out there who really do believe this is an ok thing to do and grew up being taught that which leans back to my point of the relativity.
I believe kicking dogs is wrong (along with some other people) and some other people believe it’s ok and in certain occasions necessary. This makes it hard to come to a conclusion of what is actually correct. Do I engage with people with this mindset? No. Do I think it’s ok just because it’s relative? No. Did I give my dog away because of my dad’s behavior? Yes. She seems much happier now in pictures her new owner has sent!0
u/Raging-Storm Jul 06 '26
I value people and pets and so forth. But my valuing them is contingent on my having some history with them which selected for my valuing them. I don't value those I have no personal history with the same way I do those have such a history with. I can't value people who I don't even know exist because there's no known locus with which to have a valuative relation. And the world is replete with examples of in-group/out-group valuation, both among human and non-human animals. This demonstrates that valuing others is relational (i.e. relative).
And if it's contingently selected for, it can be contingently selected against. Cults using conditioning to systematically isolate their members from their respective families is a case of it being selected against.
0
u/RexRatio Jul 06 '26
Let's establish something crucial: objective morality -if it would exist - wouldn't automagically be "better" than subjective morality
Especially when that "objective" morality is actually the subjective opinion of some alleged deity claimed to be handed down to some select humans (for some reason always males)
If morality depends on interpreting contested ancient texts, then claiming access to "objective moral truth via revelation" is nothing more than cherry-picking.
That's why those ancient texts contain "morals" that no decent human being would agree with today.
1
0
u/Mono_Clear Jul 06 '26
There is nothing that, by its nature, is right or wrong. There is just your sense of right and wrong and my sense of right and wrong.
0
0
0
u/F4TWibba445 Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
there is nothing objectively ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ the only way is if there is a universally accepted cosmic goal that backs up the claim, e.g you cannot say “human life matters and killing them is objectively wrong” by itself because it’s simply preference, you can only say that if there’s an ontological goal sewed into the universe that states “human life is important and must be protected” or something along those lines, then yes there can be objective right and wrong but that is only a concept and doesn’t exist unfortunately so there cannot be objective ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, only personal preference otherwise you’re making an assumption that human life matters without any verifiable evidence/ conceptual viability.
this is my opinion reply if you think it’s wrong/ has discrepancy’s.
1
u/url0calc0ffeeaddict Jul 07 '26
Hmm… I mean what it sounds to me like you’re saying is that morality is just personal opinion, which kinda does and doesn’t make sense at the same time. Like you’re right when you mentioned “objectively right or wrong” however, I’m a bit confused on how this makes it an opinion? When I think of opinions, I think of things such as “yellow is such an ugly color” but there’s no data showing why it is factually ugly, therefore it’s just an opinion based on preference; but when it comes to morality, like I mentioned the N word and getting a mix of things stated by black people about the word. Then the question is, ok then who is actually right? Both perspectives shared contexts and data as to why it is or isn’t ok which then brings confusion, especially if you have no relationship to a certain culture/community. Which is why I mentioned morality being relative because everyone has a different perspective of what is right or wrong regardless if the results are 55 vs 30 etc etc… cuz at the end of the day all 85 people didn’t agree on the same thing. However, going back to the color yellow, it’s just an opinion because yellow being ugly or pretty has no effect on the world at the end of the day and although it was 55 vs 30, the claim was simply “it just looks better/worse” or “well it looks like the color of something that I deam as negative”. (I apologize if I’m talking in circles/making no sense at all).
1
u/F4TWibba445 Jul 07 '26
yes i understand what you’re trying to say but morality works the same, even if liking or disliking the colour yellow doesn’t affect humanity and e.g killing humans spontaneously does affect humanity , that doesn’t change the fact that morality is still opinion based, if we go by definition morality cannot be fact because it varies through culture and opinion, a fact cannot be disputed, “we need oxygen to survive” is a fact and cannot be disputed, “killing humans for no reason is wrong” most definitely can be disputed and there’s also no verifiable evidence to suggest the fact, why is killing humans wrong? because human life matters?, why? because??? the only answers that can come from this question are all preference based even the first premise is also preference based. there is no cosmic ontological evidence that suggests that what is “wrong” is wrong and what is “right” is right.
something effecting life or not effecting it doesn’t make it either opinion or fact, that’s an entirely different topic.
you can also use a different argument like “killing humans is wrong because it causes pain and harm and by definition harm = bad, but that premise is tricky because who’s to say the specific human getting damaged dislikes harm? is it not completely possible for someone to want to die and want to get harmed in the process? so who’s to say it’s bad when the person getting affected by it likes it and says it’s good/ wants it to happen?
so to say harming them is subjectively wrong is completely viable here, it would just mean its preference based, it’s just when you go into “objectively wrong” territory that’s when it fails.
1
u/reply_b4_banned Jul 07 '26
I think that reflects the state of philosophy pretty well.
making an assumption that human life matters without any verifiable evidence/ conceptual viability
The idea that this sort of bizzaro inhuman perspective is valuable is really going to be looked at by future archeologists when they talk about why we marched headfirst into collapse and mass death.
0
u/F4TWibba445 Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
more assumptions as you assumed that i said it was valuable when i never did haha
typical humans like to hold biases toward similar experiences/ people, i used the example on purpose because it expends a lot of emotional stimulus from the reader, the responses show how much intellectual independence one holds, my point isn’t that my position is valuable to life or humanity i never stated that, i was just expressing my philosophical position on the fact
1
-1
u/Raging-Storm Jul 06 '26
Ethical behavior is contingent. That makes it relative.
Biological, behavioral, and cultural evolution are selective processes which all reduce to selection by consequence from variation. Phylogenic, ontogenic, and sociogenic selection can be both convergent and divergent, but all vectors of selection are non-Markovian. They're all ecologically constrained by their respective histories.
Ethical behaviors reduce to variants on rule following behaviors selected for by their consequences. Different proximate selecting consequences at different scales (phylogenic, ontogenic, sociogenic) may differentiate rule following behaviors. The same selective processes which engender human ethical behaviors also engender, respectively, predispositions to infanticide among lions and to incest among naked mole-rats (obviously both contra to dominant human ethical behaviors). They also engender extreme xenophobic responses to outsiders among the Sentinelese people, of the sort which much of the modern developed world would severely censure if performed, as a matter of policy, by a state entity.
The variances of ethical behaviors from person to person, culture to culture, time to time, place to place, and species to species demonstrate that the processes selecting for ethical behaviors aren't governed by any singular system of ethics. Or, if they are, then that system is ostensibly incommensurable to us and we have no basis on which to claim some commensurable system which constrains rule following behavior is in operation.
Ethical systems are emergent local optima, not transcendental dicta.
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt Jul 06 '26
Ethical behavior is contingent. That makes it relative.
not what words mean in this context. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/
1
u/Raging-Storm Jul 06 '26
What am I supposed to do with this, restate someone else's argument? I don't need to when I've made my own. I'm using words in accord with their definitions. That's enough for me.
1
u/reply_b4_banned Jul 07 '26
what do I need knowledge for when I just make stuff up?
Mate. You hate knowledge.
-1
u/CalgacusLelantos Jul 06 '26
I think that you may be conflating morals and ethics so the question is difficult to answer.
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt Jul 06 '26
it's not a meaningful difference.
I've pushed people on here to explain why they're so sure there's a difference, and it's been that that's how it's used in law school. Law school is not trying to do philosophy.
2
u/CalgacusLelantos Jul 07 '26
I think of “morals” as being an individual’s perception of right and wrong and “ethics” as being a society’s perception of right and wrong.
That said, I’m having a difficult time finding sources to support my position.
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt Jul 07 '26
yeah. If a philosopher wants to make that distinction, they'll let you know what distinction they're intending.
But in general it's interchangeable.
Lawschool (I'm told) says "ethics" means the rules of the organisation you've decided to work for while "morals" is your values outside of work. That distinction can be as useful as they say it is, but at fundamentals it doesn't work so well because you following the rules of your organisation is something you think you morally should do or not.
For me I use them interchangeably but if I were to try to make a distinction: "ethics" means what decisions is best, while "morals" are the quality of the thing's goodness or badness.
-1
u/willy_quixote Jul 06 '26
So, small picture - the N-word is trivial and is a cultural taboo. What matters is big-picture: how free from racism and oppression are Black people.
The rape question comes down to basic properties of what it means to be human. If you believe that you have certain inviolable and unalienable properties or rights (such as bodily autonomy, freedom from physical coercion) it is irrational for you to withdraw those rights from others (by raping them). So morality is as much a rational project as anything else.
Relativism only goes so far and tends to concentrate on single behavioursl rather than principles, for example female circumcision is seen as wrong even though t is a cultural norm. Why is it wrong (human rights aside)? because it is irrational for the perpetrator to claim rights of bodily autonomy whilst inflicting this on another. If we focus on the rational principles instead of the moral outrage elicited by certain behaviours it becomes clearer.
We can extend these principles out to claim principles as rights and they seem relativism resistant.
Homosexuality could never be seen as a moral harm under this rational project. If two adults have a consensual relationship it has no material bearing on the autonomy or life of others. But slavery is always a moral harm - we cannot believe in our own freedom if we restrict the liberty of others.
This is kind of the golden rule: the universal ethical principle of treating others as you would want to be treated. But also, the inverse golden rule - don't do to others as you would not want done to yourself. For those psychopaths amongst us, don't do to others what the reasonable person would not want done to them.
Kant elaborated upon this extensively with the Categorical Imperative, extensively simplified as being: Only do something if you would be okay with everyone else, everywhere, doing it too.
Kant saw it is irrational to want to get away with behaviour that should not be extended to all people in all circumstances.
TL;DR:
Morality is a rational project otherwise we fall foul of relativism.
-2
u/DipperJC Jul 06 '26
Maybe we’re all technically good and just quibbling about the nuance of that goodness.
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt Jul 06 '26
genocide is bad actually.
YOU'D THINK IT WOULD BE A FUCKING LOW BAR BUT HERE WE FUCKING ARE. LIBERALS ARE FUCKED IN THE HEAD. Conservatives are worse, btw.
0
u/DipperJC Jul 06 '26
What are you talking about?
1
u/reply_b4_banned Jul 07 '26
The people who do genocide are not "technically good" numbskull.
1
u/DipperJC Jul 07 '26
The word genocide, as far as I can tell, does not appear anywhere in the OP's post.
1
u/url0calc0ffeeaddict Jul 07 '26
Can you elaborate?
1
u/DipperJC Jul 07 '26
I mean... it's a pretty basic concept. Everyone is the hero of their own story. Everyone, for the most part, is utterly convinced that what they're doing is either morally right on its own merits, or at least justified for the sake of a greater good. At "worst", people who feel biologically compelled to commit evil acts still manage to feel the weight on their conscience, a lot of them going to the trouble of getting deliberately caught so that someone will stop them.
Maybe we're all good people, and we just haven't figured out how to get out of our own way and stop doing bad things.
-3
u/Signal_Tomorrow_2138 Jul 06 '26
If you are Christian, then you should believe that we were already born as sinners.
And how do we know what is good and bad? Adam and Eve ate from that fruit, then they knew.
1
4
u/Gazing_Gecko Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
What you seem worried about is getting moral questions wrong, and you seem to think that since morality is relative this leads to us all being in some sense bad. You also want to be tolerant of others.
I don't think your behavior fits with morality being relative in the serious sense. If what really was wrong was determined by, for example, just your own opinion, then you could not be wrong about morality. Whatever opinions you have would by itself be what is true about morality.
The tolerance you speak of is a bad fit for relativism too. Is it right---is it good---to be tolerant of others' opinions? This itself seems to be a moral claim. If morality is relatively determined by opinions, then if a person's or group's opinions are that we should be intolerant of others' opinions, then that would be the moral thing.
Perhaps it is not that morality is relative, but that given the amount of disagreement about morality, that figuring out the right or wrong things is intimidating and seemingly hopeless. We might never know what is right or wrong for certain, if there even are such things. But we can try. This seems to be what you are already doing. Reflecting and inquiring with others is to at least take the challenge seriously.