Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How do you argue w/ moral relativists?

Rate this topic


neverborn

Recommended Posts

How do you deal with people who's argument is "Well, morals are different in.... (Iraq/third world countries/places where they don't think it's wrong) etc, so it's okay!"

Personally, I wouldn't argue with them. But if I had to and get a response like that, I'd ask them "why?". "Why do you think morality is subjective?" I'd try to get to the root of their belief in moral relativism/subjectivism and then challange that root cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is a quick and easy way to discredit relativism.

Tell them that the nature of their philosophy is paradoxial and contradictory. when they ask how, demonstrate that relativism says there are no universal absolutes, that everything is subjective. The paradox is saying "Everything is relative" since the statement itself is a universal absolute. It would be like using a pencil to write "there is no such thing as a pencil."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you deal with people who's argument is "Well, morals are different in.... (Iraq/third world countries/places where they don't think it's wrong) etc, so it's okay!"

I don't think that argument follows. If you ask 3 people how many fingers you're holding up and they all give different answers, does that mean there is no correct answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you deal with people who's argument is "Well, morals are different in.... (Iraq/third world countries/places where they don't think it's wrong) etc, so it's okay!"

Arguments for moral relativity take several forms. The one you present is culturally based.

But, to start, adding to what the tortured one said. (the tortured one drops context a bit; the proper argument follows....)

"Morals are relative, therefore everything our moral disagreement is permissible," is what the person said; its equivalent is: "Morals are relative, therefore you should not judge others based on your morality."

However, saying that one should not judge others based on one's own morality IS a MORAL absolute. That is a self-contradiction.

As for culturally based arguments, they always follow this structure:

1. "Iraqis do things this way; the Japanese do it that way..."

2. No two cultures share the SAME morality, they are all radically different from one another.

3. Therefore, morality is not universal, objective, or absolute.

4. Morality is relative to the culture...*self-contradictory statements follow*

Look at numbers 2 & 3, note the illogical & illegal step from epistemology to metaphysics--the argument is horribly false.

Edited by Rainer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for culturally based arguments, they always follow this structure:

1. "Iraqis do things this way; the Japanese do it that way..."

2.  No two cultures share the SAME morality, they are all radically different from one another.

3.  Therefore, morality is not universal, objective, or absolute.

4.  Morality is relative to the culture...*self-contradictory statements follow*

Look at numbers 2 & 3, note the illogical & illegal step from epistemology to metaphysics--the argument is horribly false.

I do not understand how progression from Step 2 to Step 3 is a step from epistemology to metaphysics. Would you elaborate?

Further, are you using "objective" and "absolute" in their metaphysical or in their epistemological meanings?

(For anyone new to Objectivism: See "Objectivity" and "Absolutes" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, for an introduction to these key concepts in Objectivism.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clarify what their position is, because you might not even be disagreeing. Moral relativists often define themselves in opposition to moral objectivists (little-o), or 'intrincists' to use Ayn Rand's terminology ("moral statements express universal moral truths"), and their claims that morality is subjective might be intended to deny that morality is universal in this sense. I suspect that some people would describe Objectivism as a form of 'pragmatic relativism', in that it denies both the universal validity of moral judgements, and that 'good'/'bad' are objective properties of objects/actions.

Some of the terminology used in traditional moral philosophy is woefully stupid, so double-checking that people actually hold the position you think they do is fairly important.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you deal with people who's argument is "Well, morals are different in.... (Iraq/third world countries/places where they don't think it's wrong) etc, so it's okay!"

The illustration you provide seems to indicate that the type of moral relativist you have in mind is pretty "run of the mill".

If you're arguing with a intellectual who is espousing moral relativism, then you can explain the paradoxical nature of their philosophy. However, if you're dealing with the "street" version, then such a reply would probably be seen as a "trick reply".

For the "plain Jane" moral relativist, I'd suggest a different approach. I know that while such people espouse the explicit theory that the intellectuals are spouting, they do not follow it. So, I would approach it by asking if she thinks its morally okay to --say -- kill a child because you did not like the color of the shirt he was wearing!

If "plain Jane" says she cannot judge the morality of such an act, then she is less plain than you think. Either stop right there, or switch to the paradox argument :whistle:

Otherwise, come down a notch and see at what point she starts to waffle. She probably has quite a few things that she considers absolutely moral and absolutely immoral. It is the hazy middle-ground where she's confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: I haven't gotten to Peikoff's Ethics chapter in OPAR yet, so all I know about Objectivist morality is what I've gleaned from Atlas Shrugged. Take what I say in consideration of that.

As I see it, the only real way to disprove moral relativism is to convince them of an objective standard of moral evaluation. You're the one who has to support a standard of moral evaluation, as moral relativism necessarily follows from dismissing all such standards as arbitrary. A great deal of Objectivist theory goes to doing just that. Asking someone to claim that morals are relative is akin to asking someone to prove that God doesn't exist; you're the one that has to support the idea that an objective moral heirarchy is not arbitrary.

Some arguments I've seen in response to your question are not sound:

The paradox is saying "Everything is relative" since the statement itself is a universal absolute.

The moral relativist is not saying that nothing is absolute, just that morals aren't. If he were claiming that condemning another's moral code was morally reprehensible, then that would obviously be paradoxical.

If you ask 3 people how many fingers you're holding up and they all give different answers, does that mean there is no correct answer?

It does if you cannot support that the number of fingers you're holding up" is an objective statement. Naturally, we do that through perceptual self-evidency. Perceptual self-evidency does not work in justifying the objective nature of a moral hierarchy, though.

"Morals are relative, therefore you should not judge others based on your morality."

That's not what the moral relativist is saying. The moral relativist is saying that there exist no objective grounds to base morality on, and so it is irrational to judge one subjective moral code with another.

In other words, the moral relativist is not saying 'should not do so on moral grounds,' but 'cannot do so on rational grounds.'

1. "Iraqis do things this way; the Japanese do it that way..."

2. No two cultures share the SAME morality, they are all radically different from one another.

3. Therefore, morality is not universal, objective, or absolute.

4. Morality is relative to the culture...*self-contradictory statements follow*

That is not the argument any moral relativist I've spoken to (invariably of the "street" variety, though) is following. The moral relativist is not trying to prove something, but correctly demanding that the Objectivist prove his objective standard of morality before he accepts it. Without such support, that objective standard can be dismissed as arbitrary.

From perceptual self-evidence, I see moral relativism as the perceptual 'default.' There is no perceptually self-evident objective heirarchy of morals. Moral relativism follows necessarily from the rejection of any objective heirarchy, and most accurately describes what we directly perceive about cultures and their morals (ie. they're all different). To prove that those cultures are wrong in being different, one must support the objective standard you're using to make that claim.

For the "plain Jane" moral relativist, I think it's fairly easy to get them to see their own moral absolutism by forcing them to admit that genocide is moral if the society perpetrating the genocide considers it to be so. As plaintext said (great name, btw), if this tactic doesn't work then you know you're dealing with a more philosophical moral relativist. For such a person, the only real way to argue with them is to support your objective standard of morality.

Edited by The Trendy Cynic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The moral relativist is not saying that nothing is absolute, just that morals aren't. If he were claiming that condemning another's moral code was morally reprehensible, then that would obviously be paradoxical.

I see it as being a paradox even when confined to the realm of morality.

Let's say that one person claims that morals are relative, and another person claims tha morals are objective. The moral relativist's stance is that morality is determined by each individual's view of an action (or cultural/personal preferences, etc.). Therefore, according to the moral relativist, the fact that the moral objectivist views morality in terms of absolutes would mean that morality is indeed absolute. However, if morality is absolute then this would mean that it's not relative. Seems paradoxical to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it as being a paradox even when confined to the realm of morality.

Let's say that one person claims that morals are relative, and another person claims tha morals are objective. The moral relativist's stance is that morality is determined by each individual's view of an action (or cultural/personal preferences, etc.). Therefore, according to the moral relativist, the fact that the moral objectivist views morality in terms of absolutes would mean that morality is indeed absolute. However, if morality is absolute then this would mean that it's not relative.  Seems paradoxical to me.

More accurately, the moral relativist would say that the choice between any 2 moral standards cannot be justified through appeal to any fact, without some sort of question begging. That the moral absolutist believes it can would make him simply wrong, in the eyes of the relativist.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say that one person claims that morals are relative, and another person claims tha morals are objective. The moral relativist's stance is that morality is determined by each individual's view of an action (or cultural/personal preferences, etc.).
You're right, up to this point.

Therefore, according to the moral relativist, the fact that the moral objectivist views morality in terms of absolutes would mean that morality is indeed absolute.

You're incorrectly equivocating the validity of a moral judgment with the content of a moral judgment. The moral relativist has an absolute statement about the validity of moral judgments: They are relative. The moral objectivist has an absolute statement about the validity of moral judgments: They are absolute. Neither of those statements are themselves moral judgments; they are both absolute, objective statements about moral judgments.

More accurately, the moral relativist would say that the choice between any 2 moral standards cannot be justified through appeal to any fact, without some sort of question begging. That the moral absolutist believes it can would make him simply wrong, in the eyes of the relativist.

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're incorrectly equivocating the validity of a moral judgment with the content of a moral judgment. The moral relativist has an absolute statement about the validity of moral judgments: They are relative. The moral objectivist has an absolute statement about the validity of moral judgments: They are absolute. Neither of those statements are themselves moral judgments; they are both absolute, objective statements about moral judgments.

Thanks for clearing that up.

My understanding of moral relativism was that it rejected all absolute claims in regard to morality, and that this was a contradiction because the statement "morals are relative", as you pointed out, is statement endorsing an absolute. However, if the relativism applies only to the specific judgments, and not to morality as a whole, then no contradiction exists (at least not from this standpoint).

I know that's what you already said, but I wanted to put it in my own words so you could check that I've got it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what the moral relativist is saying. The moral relativist is saying that there exist no objective grounds to base morality on, and so it is irrational to judge one subjective moral code with another.

In other words, the moral relativist is not saying 'should not do so on moral grounds,' but 'cannot do so on rational grounds.'

It is still a moral statement dictating what you ought or ought not do....

My point is that moral absolutism is inescapable. Even if a person claims that an action cannot logically occur, moral claims will continue to follow.

I do not understand how progression from Step 2 to Step 3 is a step from epistemology to metaphysics. Would you elaborate?

Further, are you using "objective" and "absolute" in their metaphysical or in their epistemological meanings?

However the hell the relativist means them :P

Actually, I will respond later, gotta run right now...just writing to let you know I'm not forgetting.

Edited by Rainer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps there is some confusion here about the term "moral relativism." That is one kind of relativism -- the kind where the idea of relativism is applied to beliefs about ethics.

Another kind is cognitive relativism -- the kind where the idea of relativism is applied to epistemology, the gaining of knowledge.

Still another kind is political relativism -- in which one political system has different sets of laws for different sets of people. (This phrase, "political relativism," is very seldom explicit, but the idea it names is the product of multiculturalism in its most primitive form.)

Esthetic relativism is the belief that evaluating and responding to art are merely a matter of individual "taste" and that there are no objective standards for either.

I have even heard, on occasion, of a metaphysical (ontological) relativism -- the kind where the idea of relativism is applied to the nature of the world, that is, that the world is different for different people: Not just seen or evaluated differently, but is different.

In summary, the commonly used phrase that covers these is: "It's all relative."

Relativists, in consistent form, reject objectivity in both senses of that word, as it is used in Objectivism: (1) the existence of reality independent of consciousness; and (2) ideas drawn logically from the facts of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relativists, in consistent form, reject objectivity in both senses of that word, as it is used in Objectivism: (1) the existence of reality independent of consciousness; and (2) ideas drawn logically from the facts of reality.

Sadly my good friends (the intellectual two) are moral relativists. I try not to bring it up (learned my lesson pretty quick on that one) but now they ask all the time, and when I try to explain what Objectivism has taught me, they say, that's all right-we can agree to disagree right?

Which I think is more relativism really, and both of their favorite arguments is:

"But who decides what's really true?" and I say"Reality just is, noone decides it, they just decide whether or not to accept it" and they say "But whose reality is the right one" and I say "Reality is objective" and they say "But who knows whose acceptance is real and who's is not" and I say, "Reality allows no contradictions" and they say "But who decides what a contradiction is?" :P *sigh*

Needless to say the relationships have become quite strained, but we've been friends for years so I keep trying to explain. I tell them just to read the books but for some reason they refuse. I think I've biased them by bringing it up right away, I was just so excited with what I had found. It's tough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that's what you already said, but I wanted to put it in my own words so you could check that I've got it right.

Yep, you do, as I understand it. Realise that I don't really consider myself qualified to be an authority on this subject (not until I finish OPAR); it's probably best to learn more from the way people respond to my posts... if they don't argue, then I might be on to something ;)

It is still a moral statement dictating what you ought or ought not do....

Is saying "you can't jump to the moon" a moral statement because it's telling people they ought not to jump to the moon? That's a perfect analogy to what the moral relativist is saying; he's saying "you can't support an objective moral code." It's not that you ought not to do it, but that you can't do it.

I try not to bring it up (learned my lesson pretty quick on that one) but now they ask all the time, and when I try to explain what Objectivism has taught me, they say, that's all right-we can agree to disagree right?

So they bring up an argument about your moral code only to conclude it with 'nevermind, we can agree and disagree, so there's no argument?'

Ask them if it's their intention to pointlessly torment you, or if they're just being adorably oblivious :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which I think is more relativism really, and both of their favorite arguments is:

"But who decides what's really true?" and I say"Reality just is, noone decides it, they just decide whether or not to accept it"  and they say "But whose reality is the right one" and I say "Reality is objective" and they say "But who knows whose acceptance is real and who's is not" and I say, "Reality allows no contradictions" and they say "But who decides what a contradiction is?"  :thumbsup: *sigh*

Ask them who decides that day will be followed by night. Or, who decided that 2+2=4? Or, who decided that gravity will cause you to fall if you jump from a building?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Trendy Cynic, did you even read what neverborn said?

You just talked about your own experiences. Which is fine. But you quoted me out of context.

Huh? I responded to what you said regarding what you quoted me on:

Me: the moral relativist is not saying 'should not do so on moral grounds,' but 'cannot do so on rational grounds.'

You: It is still a moral statement dictating what you ought or ought not do....

Me: (by way of jumping to the moon example) It's saying cannot, not ought not, so not a moral statement.

I don't see where I took anything out of context, or responded to something that wasn't said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BurgessLau, the epistemology to metaphysics shift: Just because you think it is so, does not necessarily mean it IS so.

Just because societies vary in their UNDERSTANDINGS of morality does not necessarily mean that morality itself also varies.

I used the terms metaphysically. I realize that "objective" is not best applied to metaphysical situations, but I do so for convenience.

The Trendy Cynic, the quote neverborn wrote is what I responded to, and I responded accordingly. You proceeded to rip apart my response by moving outside of the quote neverborn provided. THAT is taking a person out of context, it is wrong.

For argumentation and discussion in general: I would have done well to have asked neverborn to provide more specific, detailed information.

Edited by Rainer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an example.

EDIT: To stay on topic, who are we(America) to tell nations which have been around for many many many many more years than the U.S. and have a form of government which has been around for so much longer, to basically shove democracy in their asses and make them become one. And to help, their ass isn't what they think, minus a few disorders like the one Neverborn has Very Happy . But anyways, yeah, this would be like Iraq or Afganistan saying, you know what? Fuck democracy, lets all make America become communist/dictatorship/facism or anything else opposite of democracy or whatever. So they attack the shit out of us then take George W. Bush and put him in some special ed prison and torture some of us. Then we can all wage war on them, and wala Shocked BOOM! OMG! It's just like Iraq.

He's equating our bringing democracy to Iraq to someone invading America and setting up a fascist state morally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...