How do you argue w/ moral relativists?

[GWDS]

Hi, if possible argue directly with me, I'm in search of a moral foundation. What caused me to give up on the reality of moral language happened several years ago, so all I can give is an approximate summary -

I've heard it said many times on this forum that the context of a philosophy gives its terms meaning. When a Christian, Nazi, and Buddhist say moral words, they mean totally different things. The Christian is relying ultimatly (it seems to me) on a 'Might is Right' type of arguement, so a 'right' decision is simply the one that avoids Hell. The Nazi bases 'right' on whatever serves the fairy tale Race. And the Buddhist, well I'm not sure, but you get my drift

It seemed to me that because they have different contexts the moral words "right and wrong" must be basically meaningless on their own. For example (and I apologize as I really haven't thought about this in quite some time), I can think of mathematic, sensory, emotional objects on their own, without having to really base them on some other form of thought. You can not do that with morality however, its terms must always be 'based' on power, 'nature', etc, hence they are meaningless words, in an 'objective' sense.

No absoltist will ever simply reply 'because it is wrong' to any action, they will (in my experiance) always instinctively back up this claim be talking about the extra-moral base of the beleif. To me absolutists may as well have thrown out moral language and simply be pragmatic in the use of such terms. 'Do this to avoid Hell/serve the Volk/help the workers' etc.

Can anyone shed some light on how this veiw may be flawed?

*edited for leaving out an important word

Edited March 9, 2005 by GWDS

[TomL]

It seemed to me that because they have different contexts the moral words "right and wrong" must be basically meaningless on their own.

What if there is one particular context for "right" and "wrong" which is correct, and the other contexts used by the other philosophies are false?

Note I did not use "right" as being antecedant to itself, but rather "correct" (or "true").

Edited March 9, 2005 by TomL

[Cole]

The words are not meaningless. Morality, in every context you referenced, has the same meaning. This meaning is; "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions- the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life."

In every instance, the concepts "right" and "wrong" refer to how well an action helps the actor to achieve the value on which he was basing his action. The disagreement on what the proper standard of value should be is a disagreement on the metaphysical level.

[GWDS]

Thankyou both for taking the time to reply.

Tom replied,

What if there is one particular context for "right" and "wrong" which is correct, and the other contexts used by the other philosophies are false?

I would like to see it. I have a feeling it would not work however, for the stated reasons.

Cole replied,

In every instance, the concepts "right" and "wrong" refer to how well an action helps the actor to achieve the value on which he was basing his action.

Could you be a little more specific? It seems to me a theist would say man has nothing to do with it - the values come from God. So moral language has to do with how God's values are met, not our own. Morality in this case, is outside the mind of the individual, so it is fundementally different from other atheistic ethics. Again, context.

Edited March 9, 2005 by GWDS

[TomL]

Tom replied,

I would like to see it. I have a feeling it would not work however, for the stated reasons.

Any question of morality, i.e. ethics, rests upon metaphysical and epistemological premises. There is a particular metaphysics (reality) and particular epistemology (reason) which are correct and true. If one bases one's morality on the premises that: existence exists (true), and reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge (true), then the morality that stems from those facts and is consistent with them, must also be true.

The Christian rejects reality as being proper metaphysics with the statement "Reality is created by God". In this statement, he is asserting that existence doesn't just exist -- that it only exists due to some consciousness. He also rejects reason as the proper epistemology with the statement, "Things happen because it is God's will", which says that man is impotent to control his own destiny, and that any attempt at using reason to do so is ultimately futile.

So to sum up: to understand ethics, you must first work out metaphysics and epistemology. See chapters 1-6 of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand -- or, if pressed for time, the first chapter of The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, which is only about 40 pages -- and while not as in-depth, is definitely consistent in its explanation of morality and the rational basis for it.

[realitycheck44]

GWDS: Why do people need morals? I think you are saying that they do need morals, but the morals are subjective. So, morals are subjective, yet "Evolutionary psychologists theorise that it was what allowed us to livein groups, aswell thre is the fact that no group has gone withought some type of morality." If morals are subjective, then why do we need them? To whose whims are the morals subjective to? The popular vote?

Zak

Edited March 10, 2005 by realitycheck44

[Inspector]

It seems to me a theist would say man has nothing to do with it - the values come from God. So moral language has to do with how God's values are met, not our own. Morality in this case, is outside the mind of the individual, so it is fundementally different from other atheistic ethics. Again, context.

Yes, precisely. What you have identified is the fact that "right" and "wrong" presuppose that the questions "right... for whom?" "wrong... for achieving what?" have been answered.

That does not make "right" and "wrong" meaningless. It just means that you have to understand the answers to the more fundamental questions before you attempt to answer later questions. "Right" for a Nazi would be "what is right for the imaginary Race." "Right" for a theist would be "what is right for my imaginary friend BooGie." You shouldn't listen to or engage in an ethical discussion without first understanding what the ethical premises and goals of the speaker are.

Objectivism totally rejects all supernaturalism and irrationalism (which includes both BooGie and "The Master Race"). The premise of Objectivist ethics is that man is a living entity with specific requirements for the continuance of his life. Specifically, that his mind and therefore reason are his only tools of survival and that there are specific ways in which they must be used if he is to survive. Naturally, anything other than an uncompromising use of reason is a death sentence to a creature for whom reason is the ONLY means of knowledge and of survival.

...it goes on from there. Tell me if that is at all interesting to you.

[GWDS]

1. We have now certainly reached the point in the arguement where our terms ought to be understood by all involved. Unfortunatly philosophy has several different meanings for its basic terms due to the number of chools which presently exist. For example, RC raised the question that something can nnot be subjective and needed at the same time. Under the difinition of 'subject' and 'subjective' in my mind however, there is no contradicition. We need some set of definitions for subject, object, mind, etc. before we move on, am I right?

2. If Objectivism did not interest me I would not be here, would I?

[Cole]

Could you be a little more specific? It seems to me a theist would say man has nothing to do with it - the values come from God. So moral language has to do with how God's values are met, not our own. Morality in this case, is outside the mind of the individual, so it is fundementally different from other atheistic ethics. Again, context.

That's true. Theists believe that morality is subjective (derived from the consciousness of God).

The standard of value used in morality of course differs between theists and Objectivists. However, this doesn't change what the meaning of morality is- "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions- the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life."

[gnargtharst]

Neverborn said: "How do you deal with people who's argument is "Well, morals are different in...[iraq], so it's okay!"

My response would be: "'okay'... for whom?" This gets immediately to the point of what the goal and beneficiary of a moral action is, according to the claimer.

The response you get from this question is a short intermediate step to finding out what their view of morality is.

E.g. "Killing a newborn daughter might seem barbaric to you and me, but in China it's very common, so although you recoil, it's actually okay."

"Okay... to whom?"

Okay for...the daughter? No, she's been murdered. Okay for...me? No, I'm opposed to murder. Okay for...you? ...so then you believe murder is okay? By what standard? Etc. Any view which is blatantly at odds with reality is a few short steps from explicit self-contradiction. If your discussion partner acknowledges the self-contradictory nature of his position, and yet expects you to continue discussing, my advice is: run. You have better things to do with your time.