There's little ethics in politics!
Moral relativism
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
This would be my view:
"Ethical relativists deny that there is any universal normative morality and claim that the actual moralities of societies or individuals are the only moralities there are. These relativists hold that only when the term “morality” is used in this descriptive sense is there something that “morality” actually refers to.
They claim that it is a mistake to take “morality” to refer to a universal code of conduct that, under certain conditions, would be endorsed by all rational persons. Although ethical relativists admit that many speakers of English use “morality” to refer to such a universal code of conduct, they claim such persons are mistaken in thinking that there is any such thing."
"Ethical relativists deny that there is any universal normative morality and claim that the actual moralities of societies or individuals are the only moralities there are. These relativists hold that only when the term “morality” is used in this descriptive sense is there something that “morality” actually refers to.
They claim that it is a mistake to take “morality” to refer to a universal code of conduct that, under certain conditions, would be endorsed by all rational persons. Although ethical relativists admit that many speakers of English use “morality” to refer to such a universal code of conduct, they claim such persons are mistaken in thinking that there is any such thing."
ZenMode
Well-known member
Acknowledging that some actions are objectively and universally immoral is not the same thing as endorsing a worldwide code of conduct.
It would seem so. How are they different?
ZenMode
Well-known member
I'm not sure what you want me to say to explain to you why two things that are not the same are different.
"Universal" and "worldwide code of content" mean the same thing.
Only Kant thought that it is never, ever, under any circumstances okay to tell a white lie. That's not the way the world works.
Ground zero for objective morality starts with Socrates, and he said it is justified to lie under strictly defined conditions.
The example Socrates uses is that it's justified to lie to a friend who has gone violently insane and wants you to give his weapons back. Misleading him serves the greater moral good of preventing him from causing self-harm or violence to others.
If the Cannanites want to ritually burn some babies alive and ask you if you know where any babies are, it is justified for you to lie to them in service of the greater good.
Agree. That means morality is not absolute.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Saying something is objectively and universally immoral is an assessment of an action. Establishing a universal code of conduct would be creating rules for behavior based on that assessment.
FGM, as we agreed to earlier, is objectively immoral because of the harm done to the victims of the action, but there is no universal code of conduct, which is why FGM still happens around the world.
That is moral relativism.
Are there actions without people? That is the whole point. "Worldwide" means the actual world, actual persons.
Clitorectomies are illegal in Niger.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Again, assessing an action is not the same thing as setting up rules for behavior based on that assessment.
How do you assess an action without having any rule?
ZenMode
Well-known member
I just explained that. We can State that FGM is objectively immoral and we can do that without setting up a code of conduct.
ZenMode
Well-known member
A good example of what I'm referring to is corporal punishment. Corporal punishment, which is essentially just hitting children with wood, is is objectively immoral for the same reason that fgm is - because of the damage that is done to the child. However, corporal punishment is still legal in many states. In other words, there is no code of conduct for corporal punishments, despite the fact that it is clearly an immoral action.
Last edited:
People hit children because they thought it was behavior modification through negative reinforcement.
A consensus arose among psychologists that it was in fact not effective. Which led many schools and parents to stop the practice.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Right, because of the harm, which is established in a number of ways, corporal punishment is immoral, but there is no universal code of conduct.