Your Opinions on Moral/Cultural Relativity

[PanzerJaeger]

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?

[Don Corleone]

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).

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

[Papewaio]

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.

[Aurelian]

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.

[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"......

[Franconicus]

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?

[doc_bean]

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

[Navaros]

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.

[Byzantine Prince]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

[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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

[Goofball]

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...

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[Steppe Merc]

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.

That's the main way that I see it. While an action is not always right, it is helpful to understand why that action happened. By today's standard, looting cities after an army conquers it is of course unaceptable (or should be, at least). But it was common practice back in the day, and it is helpful to understand that these people who say ordered sacks of cities weren't insane monsters (neccasarily), and were quite normal for their time.

And I certiantly think that people can still act good (not harm each other, no stealing etc.) without the idea of a supreme diety(s).

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's the main way that I see it. While an action is not always right, it is helpful to understand why that action happened. By today's standard, looting cities after an army conquers it is of course unaceptable (or should be, at least). But it was common practice back in the day, and it is helpful to understand that these people who say ordered sacks of cities weren't insane monsters (neccasarily), and were quite normal for their time.

And I certiantly think that people can still act good (not harm each other, no stealing etc.) without the idea of a supreme diety(s).

sure they can - i never said that they couldnt
i just think that there is no inherent reason not to

and if there is something to be gained by not obeying what is percieved as "good", and/or one can get away with it - then so be it - nothing wrong with that

[Steppe Merc]

Mmm. You're saying without the fear of an after life, people wouldn't worry about doing wrong?
Well, most non believers (agnostics, aethists, whatever) I know (including myself), have pretty much the same idea about not harming each other as a religous person. However, the question must be raised, how much of it is due to my parent's raising me with "Christian values" (for lack of a better word).
Chances are, if me or JAG, or others like us have children, we'd also raise them to not harm others.
It is an interesting question, however. I'd like to think with laws, and people raising their children with love that even aethists wouldn't diverge into a dog eat dog world. Indeed, I don't see any difference between an aethist raising their kids to hate and a relgious person raising their kids to hate, or vice versa.

[Byzantine Prince]

Wow, this thread is getting obvious.

Umm you don't need to be raised as a Christian or even from a Christian country to be able to have compassion for another's pain wether it be physical or psychological. Compassion is a human trait. Period.

If you receave love and caring when you are growing up then chances are that you are gonna have compassion for others when they are in distress. You don't need religion of any sort to give you that insight. It comes with being a social species. And that's that.

Recogniiiize, bitch.

[JAG]

if i smoke ciggarettes - i am responsible for that decision because i caused it, not because i am answerable to any other authority. it has nothing to do with any morality or responsibility for all men - that makes no reeal sense - there is no judgement standard

To understand how Sartre makes the logical leap from having responsibility and choosing for yourself and this being the same and equivalent to having responsibility and choosing for all - meaning everyone on the planet - is a bit complex and would not only require a bit of time and space but my brain to be working, which at 3 am it isn't. Tomorrow or in a PM I will try and describe this part of his philosophy to you if you want, it is interesting and on the most part I completely agree with him.

PJ, if someone chooses something, NO MATTER what they say, they actively choose to do the action. It does not matter what reasoning they used or what they think they really 'feel', at the end of the day they choose to do a specific action when they could quite easily have done something else. Someone choosing to smoke cigarettes, but feeling they don't really want to smoke cigarettes and are being 'forced' into it by their peers, is deceiving themselves. They could quite easily choose not to smoke cigarettes, but to try and make their choice easier on themselves, for whatever reason, people will try and deceive themselves with a whole host of reasons. Including coming out with statements like, 'but I really didn't want to smoke! My friends MADE me!' Rubbish.

As Sartre stated, yield or die, is still a choice. A nasty choice between giving in or being killed, granted, but it is still a choice. It is self deception to think 'I really wanted to not give in, but he had a gun!' If you yielded you choose to yield when faced with the circumstances, simple as that. You cannot claim things which you have not acted upon, simple as that.

Once you realise this, it is quite empowering, give it a go.

BP - why do you think everyone has compassion? I really do not think so, there is no universal trait everyone has which is not due to DNA. Emotions and traits - such as cowardice or honour - are all created ourselves by our choices. There is nothing such as compassion which people have just for being human, that form of human nature I will argue about forever, it is rubbish.