The notion that "morality is relative" seems to have died a quiet philosophical death.

[PlanetaryOrbit]

A while ago - perhaps decades ago - there was a philosophical movement that went something like this:


"Ethics and morality are relative."

"There are no such things as moral absolutes."

"Everyone defines things differently based on their worldview, and you can't say that one worldview is better or worse than another."





Even more extreme versions went something like this:

"There is no such thing as right or wrong."

"There is no such thing as good or bad."

"We can't know any objective truth with certainty."




That belief seems to have died a quiet death. Nowadays, EVERYBODY argues from a standpoint of right and wrong.


People argue for gay marriage on a basis of right vs. wrong.

People argue against gay marriage on a basis of right vs. wrong.

People argue for abortion on a basis of right vs. wrong.

People argue against abortion on a basis of right vs. wrong.


Etc. etc. You could name a hundred different issues, and people will argue from a standpoint of right vs. wrong.





Seems that there is agreement by many that ethics and morality are NOT relative and that there IS absolute morality - it's just that the disagreement is over WHICH stance is more right.

[Igel]

1. Of course.

It's a useful ploy to argue for philosophical or political space for your views. How can you be shut out if it's all relative?

Once you have pretension to controlling the philosophical or political space, the idea is utterly toxic? How can you argue for your views to win if the other views--those you hate--are just as valid?

You left out the slogan that you "can't legislate morality." Of course you can try, and both the right and the left have tried for decades. Both have been left very frustrated and cynical, and typically resort to more cynical and draconian attempts as time go on. If the plebes would just do what we want!


The arguments have often been moral. They're often framed as utilitarian, but ultimately, for many, they're moral. Lakoff is at least honest at this, and older, utilitarian-based thinkers suck at Lakovian framing. I just saw an attempt perhaps 45 minutes ago on DU. It's amusing in some ways that more than a few of those who utterly oppose things they view as contrary to the establishment clause are closely allied with proposed policies rooted in religious arguments while dissenting from things like having a certain symbol that costs little and affects few on some forsaken bit of public land. They agree in morality and at that point view religion as external trappings; while the external trappings of those that they disagree with cause fury.

Lakoff's point is that the right frames things in moral terms. Therefore the left must, also. It's conveniently the framework of choice for "us vs. them" them thinkers on both sides. This is toxic to thinking. Moral arguments are fast arguments, easy arguments, often tribal arguments, but seldom rational arguments. In this, Lakoff is saying that (D) must appeal to the lowest common denominator in ways that avoid serious thought in order achieve virtuous and high-minded ends.

[jollyreaper2112]

2. Eh. I'm on both sides

Religion usually claims an absolute morality given by god but made up by humans. Sam Harris argues that we can achieve an absolute morality with science and ethics. I'm simplifying his position but I tend to agree with it. We have a social contract just as we have a constructed morality. I give up my right to bash you over the head and take your shit same as you do, thus Civilization. Violence is bad, murder is bad, rape is bad, slavery is bad, etc. And it harm none, do what thou wilt. You harm others or yourself, that's bad, mkay?

As for relative, if different societies made different calls on what is civilized, we will find wildly different norms. I would go as far as to say they may be wrong but they are buying into it. Funereal cannibalism, human sacrifice, royal incest, etc. You will have a hard fight changing their minds. What if they truly believe hearts must be offered to the gods to keep the sun alight? Old people killing themselves to not be a burden is noble and celebrated. Marrying for love in spite of parental wishes is selfish and willful. And our western ways are seen as perverse.

Usually the lunkheads arguing that there is no right and wrong are trying to make excuses for doing things they know are wrong.