Your Opinions on Moral/Cultural Relativity

As the information age progresses, more and more people are learning a lot about eachother. It is evident that cultures around the world have very different values and cultural standards from one another.

Are morals and values of a person shaped completely by the culture they live in, or are there basic standards that every human society should uphold?

I believe that cultures can vary widely in their values and morals and still be equally good. However, I also think that there are some cultural standards that do transcend all just societies.. such as no murder, rape, stealing, ect. A society that doesnt respect these simple human values can be judged as bad or unjust.

What do you think?

I think you're a stinkin racist and a homophobe, you nazi!

Just kidding. I figured I'd say it before any of the leftys did, to take the sting out of it. ~;)

All kidding aside, I do believe in moral absolutes, but I think they are no where near as common as we think they are. For example, I think our society assumes a universality in opposition to homosexuality that is not there. I think there is plenty of room for them under the moral absolutes I hold to, and I am glad there people around here to remind me of that. I think the problems we have stem from cultural conditioning, and we'll move beyond all that. Marital infidelity, on the other hand, even in gay marriages, I believe to be a universal ill. You have sworn an oath to be true and you are flaunting it. Breaking it in weakness and seeking forgiveness is one thing, but to just discard it... shame on you.

I hold two moral absolutes at the end of the day, cause my teacher told me these were important. I) Love God with my whole heart, my whole mind, my whole soul and II) Love everyone around me as I love myself (well, as I'm prone to going on a bender or two and I smoke cigars, maybe better).

to be honest - i do not believe in the legitimacy of relativism nor the absolutism of morality
the more i visit these forums and read and investigate on my own time - the more confused i become

the less clear/more contradictory all positions seem to become

i cannot rationalize fidelity according to individuality
i cannot rationalize the concept that anything is "wrong" or "right" without a superlative
including murder, theft, abuse, totalitarianism, etc
since every concept of a superlative is so illogical and contradictory - i cannot see that there is one

since all of my pre-conceptions are based on a tradition and belief system that is so inherently flawed - i cannot easily buy the products of human rationalization derived from them.

the absolutist values change so often and so completely that everytime anyone thinks that they have found one, someone contradicts it and eventually a new standard is developed

i could, theoretically, state whatever i wanted as truth and as long as i was charming and steadfast enough - there is the possibility that it would be accepted by many and develop into a cultural norm to be defended at all cost

it feels as though no matter what happens to whom - nothing we do matters in any way. whether people are free to decide their futures or not - there doesn't seem to be a judgement standard and either way is reality

the correct answer never seems tenable
and simply lowering morality to the common denominator has no authority over me if i do not meet the standard

only raw power to stop me - and in a sense, we are back to square one

i can't really express the absolute despair and hatred of everything that my ideology breeds, but i only hope that others can be jaded enough to believe in morality and purpose and die happy

rant over - no matter what anyone says - my opinion seems to stay the same
but i still hope that what i hold to be true is true - as naive and mad as that sounds - basic respect for human rights (across the board) due to true altruism rather than some social consensus on how to protect individual selfishness without infringing on the selfishness of others





PS- nearly everyone seems to believe that their personal ideologies are right and many see them as worth dying for - that is an idea that is nearly universal throughout all societies. does that mean that this is also true?

oh no - that is a contradiction - lets just focus on the universal truths that dont blow our concept of lowest common denominator relativism to hell

Moral relativity is a useful tool to understand the context of the actions of someone particularly in history.

It means we can understand why someone did something.

I don't see it as giving them the right to do what they did, it just gives us a better understanding.

I think that the 'golden rule' is a pretty good beginning for a universal moral standard. Most of us would not enjoy being raped, robbed, or murdered. If we treat other beings with the respect that we would like to be accorded we have at least the beginnings of a universal moral standard that really does transcend cultural norms.

Most problems of course come when we try to satisfy our desires for status and gain at the expense of others.

Cultures with a rational moral will survive. It's all about evolution of cultures, this has brought us what we have today in the world.
Every person gets it's moral values from the culture he lives in. It has very little to do with his instincts or "humanity"......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Cultures with a rational moral will survive. It's all about evolution of cultures, this has brought us what we have today in the world.
Every person gets it's moral values from the culture he lives in. It has very little to do with his instincts or "humanity"......

---

Much of the moral code has to instincts or "humanity", but... moral values based on culture can override those more basic rules.

But as the "golden rule" seems to a very effective way to build a society on, so I say that we stick with that. That I personally agrees with them, doesn't make it a weaker argument. ~;)

Whow, Panzer, this is the best question I ever saw here! I have to think about it.

If there is a kind of common values, next question would be which they are? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Much of the moral code has to instincts or "humanity", but... moral values based on culture can override those more basic rules.

---

One example is rape. Out of a biological view, this is the most efficient way to get your genes spread. For a society it is impractical to have a lot offsprings without parental support, hence rape is not a good idea..... ~;)

I think there is such a thing as a universal morality, which is related to the 'golden rule'.
However, people tend to rationalize exceptions, which is where difficulties start. Murder is wrong, but executions can be done, soldier are considered honourable (I'm not saying they aren't), abortions are allowed etc. I don't a we can really stay true to the 'golden rule', simply because other people won't, and we should be able to protect ourselves from them and what they do. I do think most people know right from wrong when they listen to their inner voice, but we often chose to listen to what our mind says and not what soul wants :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

One example is rape. Out of a biological view, this is the most efficient way to get your genes spread. For a society it is impractical to have a lot offsprings without parental support, hence rape is not a good idea..... ~;)

---

Actually research shows that the female orgasm has a role in conception :book:

the surest way to ensure that women choose your genes over others is to kill others (competition) and force mating for a prolonged period of time (unwanted mariage between 1 man and many women) - im not afraid that our culture will devolve into this, but that is where all of this talk of specific gene survival and egoism goes.
i think that we will decide to look at another "meaning" of life after we see the dead end that this brings about

Quote:

---

I don't see it as giving them the right to do what they did, it just gives us a better understanding.

---

What is 'right' Pape?

Quote:

---

I think you're a stinkin racist and a homophobe, you nazi!

---

Youre not the first, and you surely wont be the last.. ~;)

Oh and TuffStuff, youve blown my mind with that first post. Ive read it several times.. :dizzy2:

yea - that whole thought process never seems to impress anyone
and i can never make it sound right as i think it

i have been reading to try to feel that someone understands - and as it turns out the concepts that i have been trying (and failing) to get at are found in nihilist and existentialist thought by various philosophers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Are morals and values of a person shaped completely by the culture they live in, or are there basic standards that every human society should uphold?

I believe that cultures can vary widely in their values and morals and still be equally good. However, I also think that there are some cultural standards that do transcend all just societies.. such as no murder, rape, stealing, ect. A society that doesnt respect these simple human values can be judged as bad or unjust.

---

any morals or values shaped by community and culture, are in actuality, not morals or values at all

the only morals that are perfect and unchanging are those laid out by God. on occassion, mankind will happen to abide by God's morals on certain things. this is the only time in which those things can accurately be described as "morals" or "values".

anything mankind comes up with on it's own, contrary to God, is inherently immoral and of no value (other than perhaps, detrimental value)

as for saying that there are standards that transcend all societies such as no murder: that is rubbish

most societies in this world conduct legalized mass-murders in a holocaust with no forseeable end. they just call it "abortion" in a sick attempt to pretend that their wanton acts of murder are not murder. but it is still murder no matter what they try to call it.

which again just underscores my original point (without all morals being based on God's will, society has no values or morals whatsoever). conducting a genocide of babies and pretending it's all "fine and dandy" is the epitome of evil which illustrates this reality beyond refute.

Ummm Navaros, I can't help but stumble on a glaring contradiction. If all morals are laid down by God, then which god? If any god can just lay down laws then they would be very different and therefore just as rubish as the ones we make up.

Even if we are talking about the same god and the same religion, there are still sects that disagree on things. Also God's laws(I'm assuming you are refering to the 10 commandments) don't cover every type moral. This leaves even more holes in the theory, and more chances for people to take advantage.

Then again I don't even believe in God, so I guess I'm a little biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

any morals or values shaped by community and culture, are in actuality, not morals or values at all

the only morals that are perfect and unchanging are those laid out by God. on occassion, mankind will happen to abide by God's morals on certain things. this is the only time in which those things can accurately be described as "morals" or "values".

anything mankind comes up with on it's own, contrary to God, is inherently immoral and of no value (other than perhaps, detrimental value)

as for saying that there are standards that transcend all societies such as no murder: that is rubbish

most societies in this world conduct legalized mass-murders in a holocaust with no forseeable end. they just call it "abortion" in a sick attempt to pretend that their wanton acts of murder are not murder. but it is still murder no matter what they try to call it.

which again just underscores my original point (without all morals being based on God's will, society has no values or morals whatsoever). conducting a genocide of babies and pretending it's all "fine and dandy" is the epitome of evil which illustrates this reality beyond refute.

---

i agree in principle actually
social "morality" void of a God concept is not morality
it is simply a social standard that can change with the next consensus

I don't think you necessarily need God. You just have to agree that there absolutes when it comes to right and wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

I don't think you necessarily need God. You just have to agree that there absolutes when it comes to right and wrong.

---

but then the absolutes depend on agreement

My opinion on Moral/Cultural Relativity?

That's easy.

I don't believe that any of my relatives are particularly moral, nor are they very cultured. Bunch of drunken philistines, actually...

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

most societies in this world conduct legalized mass-murders in a holocaust with no forseeable end. they just call it "abortion" in a sick attempt to pretend that their wanton acts of murder are not murder. but it is still murder no matter what they try to call it.

---

The fact that you and I and many other people around the world see it as wrong means that it has transcended societies.

Just because the majority of goverments around the world dont punish people for abortion, that doesnt mean it isnt recognized as a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

The fact that you and I and many other people around the world see it as wrong means that it has transcended societies.

Just because the majority of goverments around the world dont punish people for abortion, that doesnt mean it isnt recognized as a bad thing.

---

but panzer, many other societies thought slavery was ok
even many slaves accepted their plight reluctantly

most societies believed that it was ok to keep foreigners out and keep to themselves

most of the time, the right thing requires a small portion of society to undermine the will of the majority

the way that they do this is by using power and an appeal to a higher moral authority than majority consensus

this is a seriously tough one - without a higher moral authority, what real authority is there to decide when to overide consensus?
seemingly power would be the only real deciding factor
and who will presusme to tell those with power that they should use it for non-selfish motives without invoking the same superlative ethical code?

i do not trust that any of the answers i have to this question are correct - i only try to find the holes

I think we should distinguish between what society allows, and what society thinks is right/wrong.

Many times societies will allow things that are universally wrong for their own reasons. Many people knew slavery was wrong in their hearts, even in the south, but when your making big $$ off of it, its easy to submit to the apologists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Many times societies will allow things that are universally wrong for their own reasons. Many people knew slavery was wrong in their hearts, even in the south, but when your making big $$ off of it, its easy to submit to the apologists.

---

yea - that's why the average white farmhand in the south also believed that there was nothing wrong with slavery
because they were rolling in loot

i just dont believe in inherent morality

Moral relativism whether it be between person to person, society to society or culture to culture is clearly there and most definitely evident. What one person perceives as 'right' is different to anothers, what one society perceives as 'right' is different to others and the same for cultures.

We all need to simply choose what we believe is right and wrong and act upon that choice, everyone else does the same thing. Society can influence your decision making, but that does not get away from the fact that at the end we are simply free to choose and we cannot get away from that fact, which means there will always be moral relativism.

And I think that is right and dandy.

Well done JAG. I especially like this part:
we are simply free to choose and we cannot get away from that fact
because it's the foundamental truth. Anyone can commit any crime at any time, and there's no amount guilt to keep him/her from doing so.

We all have to have personal responsibility for our own percieved notions.


Oh and compassion IS universal so we still got that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

I think we should distinguish between what society allows, and what society thinks is right/wrong.

Many times societies will allow things that are universally wrong for their own reasons. Many people knew slavery was wrong in their hearts, even in the south, but when your making big $$ off of it, its easy to submit to the apologists.

---

You cannot play that card unfortunately. What we do is what we choose, what we choose is what we believe, simple as that. We are not what we could / should / would / wanted but didn't / thought in our heart of hearts, etc, we should have done. We simply are what we act upon.

To go around life stating that you are not what you do but what you think you should have done, is absurd. Not only are you judged on what you do, but you define yourself by your actions, none of which involve your 'real' wants. It is rubbish.

Therefore to say those who supported slavery in the South 'truly' didn't because they 'truly' didn't support it in their heads and hearts, is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

You cannot play that card unfortunately. What we do is what we choose, what we choose is what we believe, simple as that. We are not what we could / should / would / wanted but didn't / thought in our heart of hearts, etc, we should have done. We simply are what we act upon.

To go around life stating that you are not what you do but what you think you should have done, is absurd. Not only are you judged on what you do, but you define yourself by your actions, none of which involve your 'real' wants. It is rubbish.

Therefore to say those who supported slavery in the South 'truly' didn't because they 'truly' didn't support it in their heads and hearts, is wrong.

---

i agree
but i tend to support and vote in favor of conservative christians over liberal secularists even though i believe that my ideologies lie closer to liberal end
that is just the way it is - that is how i act - in opposition to the way that i think

but if the people in the south WERE racist
supported slavery and in some circles still believe in it - i dont know where you get the idea that "deep down they really didnt buy it"

Tuff, I don't think the line I have mentioned in this thread is completely to the 'liberal' extreme. Yes it was espoused by lefty figures, especially Sartre, but what it does also state is complete responsibility for your actions. If you kill someone and you know it is against the law, you have to face up to the responsibility of your decision if caught. If you decide to smoke cigarettes, you have to take the responsibility with your choice, no use saying 'I only smoke because my friends do' - no it is YOU which made the choice to smoke, your friends could not have forced you, you actively choose to smoke. It is your responsibility.

That - to me at least - is not out of bounds of many, many conservative view points.