Freedom of Speech and Moral Relativism

In this video I discuss moral relativism, human rights, and the implications of advocating both positions simultaneously.
I discuss my experiences in anthropology class, my experiences on youtube, discuss a philosopher's writing in defense of moral relativism, and then weight in with my own opinion.

If you would like a script of this video, send me a message.

Works Cited:
Harman, Gilbert. "Moral Relativism Defended" in Robert Solomon's Introducing Philosophy: a Text with Integrated Readings. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. pages 462-465.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• freedom of speech
• human rights
• rights
• morals
• moral
• morality
• moral relativism
• cultural relativism
• qur'an
• terry
• jones
• quran
• koran
• burn
• draw
• muhammad
• day
• muhammed
• gilbert harman
• philosophy
• John locke
• ethical relativism
• ethic
• ethics
• Christianity
• objective
• anthropology
• christianity

[ApostateltsopA]

I don't see how relativism is self refuting in either case. There seems to be a wide spread belief among the objectivists I've met that holds that a relativist can not enforce or suggest enforcement of their morality, but that it must be held as somehow equal to any other morality.

Should can still be used, but you offer reasons with it to show why your perception of the situation is better. Ie They should not mutilate their women, it's divisive and weakens them.

[ApostateltsopA]

@Epydemic2020 So what's wrong with being pragmatic?

[insidetrip101]

@d34d23

"There are obvious do's and don'ts in christianity."

Yes, things like murder, which has BUILT INTO IT the definition that is wrong. It isn't that killing is always wrong, but murder is always wrong.

"he came not to get rid of the old laws but to fulfill them."

Meaning those previous laws were MEANS and not the end in themselves. This is not a refutation.

"God has laws that you must abide by"

He has one law: "Love and do what you will." or "Do good and avoid evil."

[d34d23]

@insidetrip101 What are you talking about? There are obvious do's and don'ts in christianity. And Jesus explicitly said that he came not to get rid of the old laws but to fulfill them. I would argue that Christianity is not based on individuals when it comes to a moral code. God has laws that you must abide by regardless of when or where you are born and what your beliefs are.

[insidetrip101]

@Epydemic2020

This is true. The only problem I have is that on the "ladder of love" the state is higher than the person. I do not think this is true with Christianity; however, the Good is certainly synonymous with God in that respect.

[Epydemic2020]

@insidetrip101

I'm not talking about his moral conclusions, I am talking about his account of morality. Recognizing the forms and such. Christian morality looks a lot like moral platonism with God being the standard rather than some notion of abstract values.

[insidetrip101]

@Epydemic2020

Which Plato are you speaking of? The one who wrote the laws? Or the one who wrote the republic?

I find it hard for any Christian to really accept plato's stance in the republic, because I see that as inevitably leading to an arian heresy. Further, Christianity sheds the Judaic "law" in favor of Christ's "love God, love neighbor" response to the greatest of the commandments.

[biznor3]

@Epydemic2020 I'm no cultural relativist, I'm just trying to get us clear on what relativism claims and what the implications of those claims are. According to one philosophy professor at my college, cultural relativism says that moral "oughts" are real but that they are relative to culture--this is a far cry from your claim that they have no meaning if relativism is true. I agree, however, that defining "should" in this way is bizarre and not probably not correct.

[Epydemic2020]

@insidetrip101

Christian morality is a heck of a lot like moral platonism.

[insidetrip101]

@Epydemic2020

4 words. Critique of Practical Reason. Kant certainly did think of morality as having an end. The end was the dignity of any noumenal being. The noumenal was the very foundation of his categorical imperative. Aristotle thinks this way too: "for the good life is an end, and desire is directed towards this."

Bringing up Pragmatism actually gives more evidence for my point, since it is by and large a rejection of speculative wisdom and metaphysics.

[Epydemic2020]

@insidetrip101

"But that is EXACTLY how morality has been defined by many thinkers such as Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, and virtually ever ethicist in the philosophic arena."

That is simply a factually wrong statement. Kant would make it very clear that "if Rape was maximally pragmatic for me I still shouldn't do it" and so would Aristotle along w/ almost everyone else. (there is a moral theory called "pragmatism", and it is distinct from any of the people's theories you mentioned.)

[insidetrip101]

@Epydemic2020

"The pragmatic refers to the most efficient way to achieve our goals."

But that is EXACTLY how morality has been defined by many thinkers such as Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, and virtually ever ethicist in the philosophic arena.

As far as prudence not telling us what the good isn't entirely true either. Once we obtain our desired end, we can then determine whether or not that end was prudent by virtue of the happiness gained (or not) from that action.