Moral Relativism

[sqlblindman]

Lying is "absolutely" wrong? I think is pitiful easy to come up with actual scenarios where lying is justifiable. Score one more for moral relativism, and one more against simplistic ideology.

[CamillaCalamity]

Morality is a set of rules we live by and it changes depending on circumstances and varies from one person to another. It's absolutely relative. Children can usually reason beyond moral black/white good/bad by 9 or so.

[Hufflewaffle]

Ironic how he talks of 'tolerance' and 'opening up' as if they were somehow immoral.

I seem to recall something someone said once about turning the other cheek and opening your heart.

I'm confused. Are these things bad now?

[zenowing]

@Hufflewaffle I'm sure that you recognize your straw man - Niles in no way implies that tolerance and opening up are immoral. You're arguing against a premise that you constructed.

Turning the other cheek doesn't mean that you're not supposed to defend yourself, it means that you don't do it with pride or anger.

What's bad, here, is your thinking. I recommend a dose of Greg Koukl. Maybe start here.. watch v=vzdpp73Osvc

[Aaron518]

People who believe in moral relativism are just as wrong as people who believe in moral absolutism. Both cannot avoid simple examples to which the person would not agree to. Would you agree that its wrong to kill a man whos about to kill your children? Or is it absolutely wrong to lie when the Nazis ask if you're hiding any jews? Most people are really consequentialists/utilitarians­.

[types10000]

@Aaron518

"People who believe in moral relativism..."

- not at all, as a moral relativist i'm yet to run into any hypothetical i've been provide an answer for, you seem to be confusing the human limitation on perception of right/wrong to be a mark against the position (it isnt)

- to simply say 'if you cant provide me with a position in which YOU CONSIDER x to be good then moral relativism is incorrect' is infact just an argument from ignorance (logical fallacy)

[TheVisibleDentist]

The laws referred to in this video are corporate reforms by political and bureaucratic authorities via processes of abstract rationalisation and imperfect empirical investigation.

Most often these corporate statutes and policies are based on Marxist and neo-socialist ideological assumptions. This so-called evolved law is thereby fractured and reshaped with unpredictable consequences. It also tends to remove questions of public morality from the community.

see: tinyurl com / ykvgexy

[army103]

I think rapists, thieves, liars & murderers would disagree with Niles' point.

[iceefreet]

i think this guys ether had a horrible critical thinking & ethics teacher or he only went to one class. there are two types of truth relative/Objective. relative just means that something is true relative to a the observer ie you. objective truths are truth that are still true regardless of the observer. but neither are absolute truth. ethics is part of relativism because rights and wrong do change from culture to culture, there for his teacher was right if he was only teaching ethics.

[TheLordSod]

you could say that all truths are objective. That is to say, it varies from case to case and therefore could be said to be relative (not through the observer, but through those concerned) truth, although i still think its Objective.

in short i think there is a set right and wrong. it only differs for different situations. i consider people having different views a possible candidate for 'different situations'.

[pang00lin]

Niles might have a point if he could find a reasonable person who does argue that rape, murder, kidnapping, etc are 'fine.' Also, he mentioned that his ethics teacher said that they would talk about the law. Note that every 'sin' niles mentioned is illegal, apart from lying, which is illegal as soon as it matters to someone else, for example in cases of fraud. He's quick and consise, so it's easy to miss how stupid his arguments are.

[matttheobscure13]

also, the things you mentioned (kidnapping, rape, murder, terror) are against the law.

tolerance is not a bad thing, and has nothing to do with what your talking about.

You make a cheap point indeed.

[matttheobscure13]

well, obviously this idea of moral relativism was around in the time of Shakespeare, so it's hardly something new.

[corneloup81]

3. Relativism means no has ever been wrong.

With Subjective truth, no one could ever be wrong since there is no standard for right and wrong. As long as something is true to holder of truth, it is true even if it is wrong for someone else.

[TheKitXune]

"3. Relativism means no has ever been wrong."

So what? I don't need to believe that Hitler's actions were "wrong" to hate them.

[corneloup81]

2. Relativism is full of contradictions.

If Billy Graham believed God exists and an Atheist believes God did not exist both would be right. God would have to exist and not exist. If the Christian believes Jesus died on the Cross and Muslim believes Jesus did not die on the Cross, both would be right.

[TheKitXune]

"2. Relativism is full of contradictions."

Blatant strawman.

Relativism is the belief that proclamations of a moral and ethical nature are not proclamations of objective truth (or are false if they are intended to be), and thus are not subject to the same rules of logic as such proclamations of truth as "the grass is green" (that they are either true or false).

Relativism is not intended to be applied to proclamations of objective truth.

[corneloup81]

1. Relativism is self-defeating:

The relativist believes that subjective truth is true for everyone, not just from them. This is the one thing they cannot believe, if they are relativist. Therefore, if a relativist thinks it is true for everyone, then he believes it is an absolute truth. Therefore, he is no longer a relativist.

[TheKitXune]

"1. Relativism is self-defeating:"

This argument has swayed many people, however it is flawed, and blatantly so.

It is an intellectual illusion which is difficult to break, but here's an analogy that should illuminate its flaws, should you take the time to study it.

"I am an artist. I do not believe that there is a correct or incorrect way to do art."

Does the above statement qualify as a proclamation of how art should or shouldn't be done?

[Orygyn]

I disagree with lying and cheating. There, that's ruined the guy's point that there are absolute morals. As long as it's possible to disagree, they can't be absolute. What if you have a gun to your head and are forced to lie about something?

[Mortus08]

What is moral or ethical is temporally, culturally, and socially constructed.

What was moral in Nazi Germany is not necessarily moral in the United States in 2008.

[kgj08]

The question isn't how are morals interpreted differently amongst different societies, but are single societies not to interpret them at all?

[corneloup81]

can i ask you if it is a moral absolute that the rape and torture of children for fun is morally wrong in all places and all times

[reflect7]

Hey Goph000 --

You claim, "Moral relativism...is true." Is that a universal truth, or just true for you?

[TheKitXune]

It's a universal truth. I state this as a fact. That's how confident I am.

[goph000]

Two words, my man - Awful Truth. Don't disregard a philosophy just because it would suck for it to be true. Sometimes, the truth really does suck. Moral relativism...is true.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that we should all just be passive of horrible things that happen. Morals may be relative, but they're still useful. The concept of making life better is a moral concept, and when we apply ethics into the equation, we strive to help accomplish this through mutual understanding.

[limttoom]

This is interesting and indeed the world has become too tolerant

[Anarkokommunist]

If it is so f****** absolutley (excuse me if I spell wrong btw) wrong to rape, lie etc, how come people rape, lie and so on? Think people! Moral is relativ!

[reflect7]

If people violate a law, does that make it OK? You're truly saying that an instance of rape justifies rape on a moral basis?

[olavka]

It's pretty obvious that the standard morality-twisters apply to rape as well.

Would you rape a woman if it would save 1000 people's lives?(Unlikely perhaps, but it illustates the relative nature of morals - they are sometimes mutually exclusive)

Would you rape the last woman on earth to ensure the survival of the human race?

[donut1st]

If you did indeed choose to rape to perpetuate the species.......would it make it right? If right or wrong is based simply on our ability to justify it, and on no moral absolutes....don't we teeter close to the brink of chaos? If morality is relative....and truth is relative.....why be interested in the survival of a race.....if it is all relative, only I matter........

[NearVSMello]

I think he's addressing evil in terms of that which does not belong. Like a two becomes evil when you add it to the left side of the equation 2+2=4. It's not supposed to be there. It doesn't compute. It's invalid. It creates disorder. Hence it's evil - in otherwords it's unjustifiable. In this way philosophers like Plato suggest that acting out evil while comprehending its nature as evil is in fact impossible. No one would do evil voluntarily says Plato. But if we wish to look at the

[NearVSMello]

Sorry the above message didn't appear until a long time later and I forgot what I was going to continue on X-p

Anyways people want to be happy. They don't want to be miserable and be harmed. That's why good shoud appeal over evil, right? That's why good is GOOD and evil is EVIL. But if that's true Plato asks: who would want to do evil knowing that it leads them down a path they do not want to be on? That is why Plato concluded that evil is if anything an involuntary way of life.

[NearVSMello]

But if that's true and nobody does evil voluntarily, because they desire evil, then why do we hear about crimes like rape, murder, etc? If the people who commit these atrocities do not desire to be evil, why are they doing it? The only logical conclusion must be that somewhere in their minds, be they sane or insane, they must perceive their actions as good. But if what seems like undeniable evil to us like, murder and mayhem, appears as good to others then on what grounds can objectivism lie?

[Jeremyguru]

There are instances in which lying, cheating, stealing and even killing are NOT immoral. It's situational.