How Shall We Judge?: Moral Absolutism vs. Relativism - Part1

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clp709yoPD0
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq7sG2uk-J0
Total time: 21:24

Part One of a presentation I gave in 2005 for my final project in a philosophy class, in which I attempt to prove moral absolutism and refute moral relativism.

None of the arguments are original; most of them are from C.S. Lewis and Peter Kreeft (and are cited).

The pictures of Aragorn, Mussolini and the nazis, Peter Kreeft, C.S. Lewis, and Super Mario World, and the music from Lord of the Rings soundtrack, Riven, "Hellmarch" from Command and Conquer: Red Alert, etc., were used without permission or citation. But I hope the powers that be will forgive my educational, noncommercial use of them.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• humanities
• philosophy
• ethics
• morality
• moral
• absolutism
• relativism
• c.s.
• lewis
• kreeft
• psychology
• human
• nature
• anthropology

[FatGermanBastard]

I don't know if I posted this already...but I wanted to say that you should take moral nihilism into consideration. Morality can not only be absolute or relative but it could also be non existent. You are defending against relativism but not against nihilism. Therefore you are not proving moral absolutism even if your argument is true. You simply forget about the third alternative. Maybe make a video about that also !

[TheScholarBookWorm]

You may be right. On the other hand, relativism and nihilism might ammount to the same thing, which would make your objection a distinction without a difference. I think absolutism still stands, but you already know my position.

[partilov1]

moral intuitions are made by evolutionary means and evolution only adapts organisms to the environment

so different environment different morality

if we take the moral intuition of sharks(within a different environment)it contrasts with that of humans.

for example sharks either leave their babies and go off to mate again or they will eat them.

[TheScholarBookWorm]

See the sequel of this video (Part 2), which I think addresses your question.

[baydood510]

saw your videos..n i agreed.

[MrBenMcLean]

@emiljanowicz Actually Rand is a moral absolutist. She does reject the intrensicist theory of values that is common to most absolutists but she is nevertheless an absolutist and not a relativist. Rand would argue there are three theories of value: the intrensicist, the subjectivist and the objectivist. I am not sure whether Objectivism really counts as a third system of values but whether it does or not, Absolutism and Relativism are not specific theories of values in themselves but categories.

[EdjeBos]

That's why I am against the death penalty. To judge a murderer and say: "We morally condemn your deed of taking someones life and therefore we are taking yours" is a contradiction. If we as a society condemn murder as an immoral act, to answer with murder is just as immoral.

[Mojobo83]

Whoa Buddy!!!! Fascism is a pretty moral absolutist stance - it's right to be this, not right to be anything different, Period. Try to be a little more objective, at least in your part 1. You brush off the self destructivness of imposed guilt and you flash Nazi images when you talk explain the consequenses of relitevism. Be more... Scholarly... yeah thats the word.

[Yuna0316]

OMG! youre so0o0o CUUUTE! n so0o0o smart (++++) hehe!

[emiljanowicz]

the third option is objectivism

[vooooom]

Which behavior would maximize well being would be different for each individual and therefore relative. Neuroscience can't take into account personality.

[stanleygarden]

Sam Harris presented a formidable lecture on precisely the harmful implications of moral relativism. His thesis basically consists on the way neuroscience will surely be our future source of moral truths. If we agree that morality is about happiness and suffering (which is why we don't have moral obligatins toward rocks and why our moral views vary toward crickets and monkeys) then we know that behavior which would maximize well being is a better choice than a behavior causing pain.

[pablo11122235]

Good presentation thoughtful. Nicely presented.

I must agree that I think there is a false dichotomy here: absolutism, relativism. A third option is universalism . Nihilism is not really a 3rd option because it is about the metaphysical status of values, not whether they are relative or universal. Check out Pojmans "Discovering Right and Wrong" for many of these distinctions. however, I do agree with one of your conclusion/// relativism is inconsisten with itself and our other beliefs