Bantaba in Cyberspace

Bantaba in Cyberspace

All Forums

General Forum

General Forum: General discussion

IS MORALITY RELATIVE?

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:

UserName:

Password:

Format Mode:

Format:

Videos:

Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON

Smilies

[quote][i]Originally posted by kayjatta[/i]
[br]KAYJATTA

The question of morality touches on the broader question of ethics. In this paper, I examine moral relativity within that broad context of ethics but often referring to justice as an example of a moral act. I argue in favor of moral relativism, relying mainly on Aristotle�s moral theory as oppose to Emmanuel Kant�s Universalist theory. I use Kant largely because he appears to stand on a similar philosophical ground as Plato. Kant and Plato share a Universalist view of morality. They both believe that morality is absolute for all people at all times. This is perhaps the Newtonian view of the universe(after the British physicist, Isaac Newton) of morality as opposed to the Aristotelian moral relatively similar to Einstein�s (Relativity) theory of the universe.

Moral relativity is the philosophical theory that there is no objective standard to measure or judge what is right or wrong. This concept perhaps developed from the �social contract theory� as explained in Plato�s Republic. The �social contract theory� states that human beings are naturally unjust (immoral). Everybody acts on their desires and personal interest somewhat similar to John Locke�s political theory of the �State of Nature�, which ultimately is bad for everyone in the society. This realization that extreme individual selfish acts ultimately undermine society�s wellbeing then prompts people to agree among themselves not to harm one another. This agreement then becomes the �social contract� that forms the moral code leading to a peaceful, beneficial and a happy society for all, Glaucon stated in the Republic.

Therefore, according to moral relativism, what is moral or ethical depends on what is generally accepted by each society. Morality therefore cannot be constant over time and space. In short, there is no such thing as absolute morality.

Critics of moral relativism argue that it makes excuse for horrible acts such as slavery and Nazism for example, which could then be considered by moral relativist as morally right in the past even though it is now considered by the majority of people as wrong. Professor Nam raised this issue in his lecture series by asking �what if the majority of the people come to consider slavery as morally right again in 2052?� These are valid questions that need to be adequately addressed by moral relativists.

However, slavery (except chattel capitalistic slavery that existed in the United States and Europe) in some form existed in every society at some point. It is often a response to the prevailing economic conditions and labor relations that sometimes works for both slave and slave owner.

However, the question still remains: why do we act morally? Or to use justice as a specific example, why do we act justly? Before addressing this question, I have to point out that, as Professor Nam stated; this question assumes that morality actually exists? If so, then the question of whether morality is absolute or relative and the motive(s) for it arises.

Morality is indeed real, by all indications, and according to Aristotle, it exists in relative terms. That is to say that morality varies from society to society across time and space. Professor McGowan cited the example of the Eskimo culture in his lecture. According McGowan, Eskimo parents kill their young ones especially female ones at their own discretion, and they also freely share their wives with visitors as a show of hospitality. These acts by Western standards are horrible acts, but there appears to be a number of environmental and cultural rationales for these practices by Eskimos.

Aristotle argued that people act morally or justly because of their natural desire to do the �highest good� which is to achieve the state of happiness. This, in the Aristotelian sense is a natural urge to fulfill human nature rather than an abstract mysterious purpose that both Plato and Kant suggested. In the painting of the two philosophers (Plato and Aristotle) shown together in Dr. Nam�s lecture, Plato could be seen pointing his finger upwards while Aristotle directed his hand to the ground.

This depiction of the two philosophers, in a subtle way, illustrates their different philosophical stands. While Plato looked upwards to the sky for heavenly reasons why humans act morally or justly, a view shared by Kant; Aristotle looked for earthly reasons within human beings themselves for the motives. It is relevant to note this Aristotelian departure from his teacher, Plato�s transcendentalist motives for morality. Aristotle viewed happiness as the use of reason and wisdom to perform virtuous acts.

Emmanuel Kant in contrast trusted that instinct more than reason results in actions that produce happiness. Therefore, according to Aristotle, virtue is the criterion for evaluating whether an action is morally good or not. These inward, naturalistic ways of explaining human motives for acting morally are referred to as the �Aristotelian Circle�. It stands in sharp contrast to the supernatural, abstract and mysterious ways of Plato which are now called the �Platonic Forms�. While Plato didn�t elaborate on these transcendental motives, Aristotle went to some length to explain his theory.

According to Aristotle, two forces determine whether humans act morally or not. They are �character� and �action�, and both are not absolute but rather they depend on each other. �Character� determines an action to be virtuous.

However, �character� is in turn formed by virtuous �acts� (actions). Aristotle believed that this two way interaction between �character� and �action� results in the state of �happiness� (Eudaimonia), which is the ultimate goal of human nature. �Happiness above all else is what we choose always for itself and never for the sake of something else�, Aristotle said (Andrew Bailey, 2011). 
Critics of Aristotle�s theory points out that his argument could not be right because it runs in circles. They are quick to note that, it is a circular argument to say that �character determines action, and that action in turn determines character� as the �Aristotelian Circle� appears to indicate. For this reason, they argue that we have to accept Plato�s argument in the �Platonic Forms� because it does not have the circular problem that Aristotle�s theory has. My problem with the �Platonic Forms� is that we do not know what it is. Plato did not tell us what these forms are. Plato�s theory therefore may not have a circular problem, but it does have an epistemic one.

Professor McGowan also cited the examples of free speech in the United States versus China, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and the U.S. Founding Fathers as representing moral acts at one point in time and space and at another, representing immoral acts. This illustrates that moral relativism is self-defeating, according to Professor McGowan. However, McGowan warns us to be open-minded because our preferences may not after all be rooted in some absolute rational standards, and cited monogamy in Mormonism as well as modesty of dress and Janet Jackson�s �wardrobe malfunction�.

In his �Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals�, Kant also identified �character� as a precedent for moral acts, but unlike Aristotle, he added �good will� as an indispensable constituent of �character�. Kant�s �good will� is similar to Plato�s transcendental motives in that he (Kant) views �good will� as the highest good, even worthy of happiness by itself. Kant�s view is problematic with regards to actions that are just and moral, for he believes that the mere act of doing something just and moral does not necessarily result in its moral worth.

The �good will� or the inclination to do the just and moral act must be present in order for the action to be morally worthy. This Kantian �good will� is the mental disposition that Kant himself referred to as the �categorical imperative� (Bailey, pg. 659). Therefore an action accompanied by good will has moral worth, and an action not accompanied by good will has no moral worth, according to Kant (Bailey, pg. 650). In his �Third Formulation�, Kant urged one to act as if his actions should serve as a universal law of all rational beings (Bailey, pg. 662). But there is no universal law of all rational beings. Besides the physical laws of nature, much of the laws governing human actions are human constructs reflecting human interaction with one another and the environment through time and space. Kant in effect ascribed a fixed reference point for moral behavior, pretty much like Plato did. This is not consistent with human experience. Human history itself is a testimony to the credibility of moral relativity. Human beings, as evolutionary beings, are in all respects non-static.

Human character and action are in a constant flux as variables of time and space. Our changing values on some of today�s hot-button issues such as military conflict, assisted suicide, gay marriage, abortion rights, etc are very instructive in this respect.
[/quote]

Check here to include your profile signature.

T O P I C R E V I E W
kayjatta	Posted - 21 Apr 2014 : 09:16:16 KAYJATTA The question of morality touches on the broader question of ethics. In this paper, I examine moral relativity within that broad context of ethics but often referring to justice as an example of a moral act. I argue in favor of moral relativism, relying mainly on Aristotle�s moral theory as oppose to Emmanuel Kant�s Universalist theory. I use Kant largely because he appears to stand on a similar philosophical ground as Plato. Kant and Plato share a Universalist view of morality. They both believe that morality is absolute for all people at all times. This is perhaps the Newtonian view of the universe(after the British physicist, Isaac Newton) of morality as opposed to the Aristotelian moral relatively similar to Einstein�s (Relativity) theory of the universe. Moral relativity is the philosophical theory that there is no objective standard to measure or judge what is right or wrong. This concept perhaps developed from the �social contract theory� as explained in Plato�s Republic. The �social contract theory� states that human beings are naturally unjust (immoral). Everybody acts on their desires and personal interest somewhat similar to John Locke�s political theory of the �State of Nature�, which ultimately is bad for everyone in the society. This realization that extreme individual selfish acts ultimately undermine society�s wellbeing then prompts people to agree among themselves not to harm one another. This agreement then becomes the �social contract� that forms the moral code leading to a peaceful, beneficial and a happy society for all, Glaucon stated in the Republic. Therefore, according to moral relativism, what is moral or ethical depends on what is generally accepted by each society. Morality therefore cannot be constant over time and space. In short, there is no such thing as absolute morality. Critics of moral relativism argue that it makes excuse for horrible acts such as slavery and Nazism for example, which could then be considered by moral relativist as morally right in the past even though it is now considered by the majority of people as wrong. Professor Nam raised this issue in his lecture series by asking �what if the majority of the people come to consider slavery as morally right again in 2052?� These are valid questions that need to be adequately addressed by moral relativists. However, slavery (except chattel capitalistic slavery that existed in the United States and Europe) in some form existed in every society at some point. It is often a response to the prevailing economic conditions and labor relations that sometimes works for both slave and slave owner. However, the question still remains: why do we act morally? Or to use justice as a specific example, why do we act justly? Before addressing this question, I have to point out that, as Professor Nam stated; this question assumes that morality actually exists? If so, then the question of whether morality is absolute or relative and the motive(s) for it arises. Morality is indeed real, by all indications, and according to Aristotle, it exists in relative terms. That is to say that morality varies from society to society across time and space. Professor McGowan cited the example of the Eskimo culture in his lecture. According McGowan, Eskimo parents kill their young ones especially female ones at their own discretion, and they also freely share their wives with visitors as a show of hospitality. These acts by Western standards are horrible acts, but there appears to be a number of environmental and cultural rationales for these practices by Eskimos. Aristotle argued that people act morally or justly because of their natural desire to do the �highest good� which is to achieve the state of happiness. This, in the Aristotelian sense is a natural urge to fulfill human nature rather than an abstract mysterious purpose that both Plato and Kant suggested. In the painting of the two philosophers (Plato and Aristotle) shown together in Dr. Nam�s lecture, Plato could be seen pointing his finger upwards while Aristotle directed his hand to the ground. This depiction of the two philosophers, in a subtle way, illustrates their different philosophical stands. While Plato looked upwards to the sky for heavenly reasons why humans act morally or justly, a view shared by Kant; Aristotle looked for earthly reasons within human beings themselves for the motives. It is relevant to note this Aristotelian departure from his teacher, Plato�s transcendentalist motives for morality. Aristotle viewed happiness as the use of reason and wisdom to perform virtuous acts. Emmanuel Kant in contrast trusted that instinct more than reason results in actions that produce happiness. Therefore, according to Aristotle, virtue is the criterion for evaluating whether an action is morally good or not. These inward, naturalistic ways of explaining human motives for acting morally are referred to as the �Aristotelian Circle�. It stands in sharp contrast to the supernatural, abstract and mysterious ways of Plato which are now called the �Platonic Forms�. While Plato didn�t elaborate on these transcendental motives, Aristotle went to some length to explain his theory. According to Aristotle, two forces determine whether humans act morally or not. They are �character� and �action�, and both are not absolute but rather they depend on each other. �Character� determines an action to be virtuous. However, �character� is in turn formed by virtuous �acts� (actions). Aristotle believed that this two way interaction between �character� and �action� results in the state of �happiness� (Eudaimonia), which is the ultimate goal of human nature. �Happiness above all else is what we choose always for itself and never for the sake of something else�, Aristotle said (Andrew Bailey, 2011). Critics of Aristotle�s theory points out that his argument could not be right because it runs in circles. They are quick to note that, it is a circular argument to say that �character determines action, and that action in turn determines character� as the �Aristotelian Circle� appears to indicate. For this reason, they argue that we have to accept Plato�s argument in the �Platonic Forms� because it does not have the circular problem that Aristotle�s theory has. My problem with the �Platonic Forms� is that we do not know what it is. Plato did not tell us what these forms are. Plato�s theory therefore may not have a circular problem, but it does have an epistemic one. Professor McGowan also cited the examples of free speech in the United States versus China, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and the U.S. Founding Fathers as representing moral acts at one point in time and space and at another, representing immoral acts. This illustrates that moral relativism is self-defeating, according to Professor McGowan. However, McGowan warns us to be open-minded because our preferences may not after all be rooted in some absolute rational standards, and cited monogamy in Mormonism as well as modesty of dress and Janet Jackson�s �wardrobe malfunction�. In his �Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals�, Kant also identified �character� as a precedent for moral acts, but unlike Aristotle, he added �good will� as an indispensable constituent of �character�. Kant�s �good will� is similar to Plato�s transcendental motives in that he (Kant) views �good will� as the highest good, even worthy of happiness by itself. Kant�s view is problematic with regards to actions that are just and moral, for he believes that the mere act of doing something just and moral does not necessarily result in its moral worth. The �good will� or the inclination to do the just and moral act must be present in order for the action to be morally worthy. This Kantian �good will� is the mental disposition that Kant himself referred to as the �categorical imperative� (Bailey, pg. 659). Therefore an action accompanied by good will has moral worth, and an action not accompanied by good will has no moral worth, according to Kant (Bailey, pg. 650). In his �Third Formulation�, Kant urged one to act as if his actions should serve as a universal law of all rational beings (Bailey, pg. 662). But there is no universal law of all rational beings. Besides the physical laws of nature, much of the laws governing human actions are human constructs reflecting human interaction with one another and the environment through time and space. Kant in effect ascribed a fixed reference point for moral behavior, pretty much like Plato did. This is not consistent with human experience. Human history itself is a testimony to the credibility of moral relativity. Human beings, as evolutionary beings, are in all respects non-static. Human character and action are in a constant flux as variables of time and space. Our changing values on some of today�s hot-button issues such as military conflict, assisted suicide, gay marriage, abortion rights, etc are very instructive in this respect.
15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
kobo	Posted - 06 May 2014 : 23:15:05 quote: "Discipline of the mind is a basic ingredient of morality and therefore of spiritual strength..." - HAILE SELASSIE I "We are all adherents, whatever our internal political systems, of the principles of democratic action." - HAILE SELASSIE I
kayjatta	Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 07:47:29 quote: Originally posted by kobo Kayjatta. This is a very broad social construct subject (to study the phenomena of behaviour, instincts, nature and civilisation) but as we review, analyse and interact we will try to streamline and trim or break your statements to simplify them; to see what (useful information = knowledge) we can gain from discourse in this topic; of which effectively is to LEARN AND BE BETTER INFORM OR WISER 1. The Domain of Morality: More Wikipedia useful notes about morality before we can consider whether concept or term is "static" or "relative"; among other pertinent details and questions "Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc., or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles. Moral philosophy includes moral ontology, or the origin of morals, as well as moral epistemology, or what we know about morals. Different systems of expressing morality have been proposed, including deontological ethical systems which adhere to a set of established rules, and normative ethical systems which consider the merits of actions themselves. An example of normative ethical philosophy is the Golden Rule which states that, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself." 2. Morality and Ethics: "*Ethics* (also known as moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy which addresses questions of morality. The word 'ethics' is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual." Likewise, certain types of ethical theories, especially deontological ethics, sometimes distinguish between 'ethics' and 'morals': "Although the morality of people and their ethics amounts to the same thing, there is a usage that restricts morality to systems such as that of Kant, based on notions such as duty, obligation, and principles of conduct, reserving ethics for the more Aristotelian approach to practical reasoning, based on the notion of a virtue, and generally avoiding the separation of 'moral' considerations from other practical considerations."" Kobo thank you for your observations/analysis. One important thing you brought out that caught my attention is the distinction between "ethics" and "morality". My approach to the two terms is that "morality" applies generally to the individual whereas "ethics" applies to a group such as a professional group like attorneys or doctors. Therefore "ehics" has a broader reach. Deontology is a just a fancy word for the study of ethics (I guess). It is the duty that comes with membership to a particular professional group such as doctors, attorneys, teachers or certain status such as parents priests, etc which must supercede all personal and other considerations. But I agree, the distinction can be very blurry and confusing and the two words are often interchanged. Hey thanks again all of you
kisley	Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 10:32:04 Maybe kay should just relaunch his original posting. it's gone right off track
kisley	Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 10:23:56 Dear toubab I cant delete my posting, just ignore me, I think i got out of bed the wrong side this morning. You are not the type of bloke to demean anyone. My apologies
kisley	Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 10:01:09 quote: Originally posted by toubab1020 OK let me try,Kay Kobo Admin & Momodou put forward their own separate arguments Kobo thought Kay was using each correct punctuation, KOBO, being Kobo corrected it as he thought fit,Momodou did the same.admin joined in so basically there was a verbal argument going on between all these men,I joined in and asked for "peace",in other words "stop fighting" amongst yourselves as to who was right and who was wrong. Any Clearer now ? NO!! unless you are referring to another topic that I am unaware of. And may i add ,I find your response to me very demeaning
kobo	Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 08:32:12 Kayjatta. This is a very broad social construct subject (to study the phenomena of behaviour, instincts, nature and civilisation) but as we review, analyse and interact we will try to streamline and trim or break your statements to simplify them; to see what (useful information = knowledge) we can gain from discourse in this topic; of which effectively is to LEARN AND BE BETTER INFORM OR WISER 1. The Domain of Morality: More Wikipedia useful notes about morality before we can consider whether concept or term is "static" or "relative"; among other pertinent details and questions "Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc., or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles. Moral philosophy includes moral ontology, or the origin of morals, as well as moral epistemology, or what we know about morals. Different systems of expressing morality have been proposed, including deontological ethical systems which adhere to a set of established rules, and normative ethical systems which consider the merits of actions themselves. An example of normative ethical philosophy is the Golden Rule which states that, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself." 2. Morality and Ethics: "*Ethics* (also known as moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy which addresses questions of morality. The word 'ethics' is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual." Likewise, certain types of ethical theories, especially deontological ethics, sometimes distinguish between 'ethics' and 'morals': "Although the morality of people and their ethics amounts to the same thing, there is a usage that restricts morality to systems such as that of Kant, based on notions such as duty, obligation, and principles of conduct, reserving ethics for the more Aristotelian approach to practical reasoning, based on the notion of a virtue, and generally avoiding the separation of 'moral' considerations from other practical considerations.""
kobo	Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 08:24:35 Toubab Sorry to say there was no argument or misunderstanding and it is not as perceived by you. You did not understand what was going on and did not follow the flow, helping to improve Kayjatta's article originally posted without paragraph. We were helping to set out paragraphs. What we wanted in layout is already achieved and case close
toubab1020	Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 03:24:18 OK let me try,Kay Kobo Admin & Momodou put forward their own separate arguments Kobo thought Kay was using each correct punctuation, KOBO, being Kobo corrected it as he thought fit,Momodou did the same.admin joined in so basically there was a verbal argument going on between all these men,I joined in and asked for "peace",in other words "stop fighting" amongst yourselves as to who was right and who was wrong. Any Clearer now ? quote: Originally posted by kisley quote: ie riginally posted by toubab1020 Boys boys boys..............Peace please !!! Sorry toubab, i don't always get your humour, would you care to explain? I am not afraid to admit that I don't fully understand a topic, but it dosen't stop me from trying. Comming from a very working class/ very poor background we didn't have the best education unfortunately. SO I aint one for putting on "airs and graces", or pretending to be something i am not. Oh and by the way I like Kobo, the site would be boring without him. (obviously I dont always agree with what he says)
kisley	Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 13:02:29 quote: Originally posted by toubab1020 Boys boys boys..............Peace please !!! Just realised IRONY toubab, ok better let the "intellects" get back to their discussion.
Momodou	Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 11:00:23 I believe there is a higher purpose for morality. However, we have seen how various politicians, religious scholars & leaders hypocritically bend and translate various moral conducts to fit their situations, so I would say it is relative.
kisley	Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 09:52:20 quote: Originally posted by toubab1020 Boys boys boys..............Peace please !!! Sorry toubab, i don't always get your humour, would you care to explain? I am not afraid to admit that I don't fully understand a topic, but it dosen't stop me from trying. Comming from a very working class/ very poor background we didn't have the best education unfortunately. SO I aint one for putting on "airs and graces", or pretending to be something i am not. Oh and by the way I like Kobo, the site would be boring without him. (obviously I dont always agree with what he says)
kayjatta	Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 09:04:45 Okay thanks folks for the suggestions about paragraphing, etc. I didn't just think that Momodou would be so generous with space. I also agree with Kisley that this is not for the "pea size brain", you have to have the super brain of Kobo :). Why else would Toubab be pleading for peace .However, it is much simpler if you just focus on the questions raised such as "is moraly relative or absolute (static)? Does morality vary across cultures and generations or is it true that what is moral at any time is always moral across time and space? Is there a higher purpose (godly reason) for morality or is it that men act morally for earthly purpose (human reason) such as to maximize their own happiness? The rest is just philosophical crap you don't need to worry too much about ...
toubab1020	Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 04:14:30 Boys boys boys..............Peace please !!!
kisley	Posted - 22 Apr 2014 : 16:03:21 thanks, that's much better.
kayjatta	Posted - 22 Apr 2014 : 12:29:17 Thanks Momodou.

Bantaba in Cyberspace

This page was generated in 0.06 seconds.

User Policy, Privacy & Disclaimer |