Moral and Epistemic Relativism

[Emmy]

Hiya,

So, instead of flagrantly derailing any more existing threads, I thought I'd start a new one. About relativism, concerning both what is right and what is true.

I'm curious about whether you think that what is morally right or what is true are relative either to cultural context or to individual perspective. Please feel free to treat either topic alone or to discuss both- whatever interests you.

My short answer is No. There are a lot of footnotes and disclaimers, but basically the answer, I think, is no. (Just as a personal aside, I find that this puts me in opposition, often, to those with whom I'm usually most closely politically aligned- that is, the left. )

I'll come back a bit later (after I finish yet another overdue assignment- ugh, what is wrong with me???), I think, and elaborate, but I thought I'd throw this out there now and just see if anyone was interested in the topic.

Thank you!

Emily

[Thinker]

I would definitely be interested.....if I knew exactly what you're asking.

Will you put it in simpleton-ese for me, please???

[Emmy]

Ha, well, I'm certainly not buying the 'simpleton' claim!

But let's see if I can express myself a little more clearly... I guess I'm asking whether people think that acts are right or wrong in and of themselves (or claims true or false in and of themselves), on the one hand, or whether what is right and what is true vary according to context. Do morality and/or truth mean anything independently of what individuals or societies deem to be right or true?

Hope that helps a bit. Please let me know, though, if not!

Thanks very much,

E

[EnderD_503]

I disagree, what is morally "right" or "true" is entirely relative. Morality is a man-made construct and as such was moulded to whatever belief system it spawned from and, therefore, can only be "true" according to said belief system, but is by no means ultimately true (meaning it cannot exist without that system). Some morals are subjective according to culture or individual, however, others are more pan-human due to the very reason that they concern the survival of the species (a pan-human concern). Therefore, it stems more from the desire to survive (and the desire for those closest to ourselves to survive), a desire which exists in every other species.

I often find it strange the way people in marginalised communities cling to morality as though without it discrimination of marginalised groups would run rampant. I've actually found the case to be quite the opposite. Morality seems to have, at least partially, spawned discrimination in that it passes judgement (or worse) upon any act its own system deems as wrong. That act may be murder, or, on the other hand, it may be sex between two people of the same sex, or sex between two people of a different race, and so on and so forth. Oddly enough both sides, both the "bigots" and the "enlightened" seem to prefer to tout the other as undoubtedly immoral and their own perspective as undoubtedly moral. Why not use reason over moral codes? Who's morality is more moral and according to whom? An extremist who blows up a building or anything else is just as full of moral conviction as those who point at him as the epitome of immorality, the devil in disguise. What makes popular western or left-wing convictions more "true" than any other? Location? The mere fact that one happens to agree?

[little man]

i think that truth, right, wrong, moral, immoral are totally subjective. if not, how could there be mitigating or extenuating circumstances?

i've long thought that the 'truth' is only what you're willing to believe.

i do make a distinction between true and truth. true would be an observable fact. truth would be more aligned with faith. for me. i don't believe in any universal truths. what works for one or some does not always work for others.

i think that groups of people who agree to live together (societies) make tacit agreements on what is acceptable behaiors and laws are made accordingly. those who are unwilling or unable to abide by those laws used to be banished. now, they're imprisoned.

i'll stop here, before i wander into one of my long time thought processes on social contracts.

[Isadora]

Morality, to me, is a form of religious or spiritual belief in right for the betterment of those who believe the same and/or to achieve (heaven, nirvana, Avalon, etc.) a higher being after death. Morality is based on fear of eternal punishment. (Margaret Mead)

Ethics is about how we form guidelines in our society for the betterment of all people. Ethics guide how society works and is lubricated. As societies grew (according to anthropologists and cultural geographers) ethical behavior changed based on the needs of a particular society. Ethics, to me, is about how society agrees to live with each other. Ethics can include many forms of belief especially around decision making, laws, conflict management and how we perceive truth.

And then there is truth. It is an old word...actually of German/Saxon origins. The etymology of the word is from the German "troth" to be faithful or true. It meant to be "treu" is to be faithful, honest, loyal and to live in good faith. The word for "factuality" is actually "soth" (k, this is as close as I could get on this computer to the spelling). There are two distinct meanings for what is truth. I believe soth is always coloured by our perception and therefore subjective. Truth as in being faithful is an emotional or ideological connection to a person, community or society.

(K, I have a fetish about words, meaning and cultural awareness of language.)

So this is a long winded explanation of what littleman said. LOL

[Emmy]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. You make several good and interesting points.

On one reading, it seems to me that your first paragraph assumes what it seeks to demonstrate. The logic here seems similar to this: Morality does not exist except relative to human cultures. Therefore, morality is relative. If the aim here is to show that an act can be right or wrong only insofar as people judge it to be, I don't think the case has been made.

However, if the crucial point you make in your first paragraph is instead that particular moral codes, developed and upheld by particular cultures, must be remembered to be cultural products -and not, a priori, correct in their moral judgments - I'm with you entirely.

In your second paragraph you make several great points. One of which is that conventional codes of morality have often been used to oppress marginalized groups. What I take from this, though, is that not nothing is right and nothing is wrong, but rather that the codes used to brutalize those who are different simply have it wrong when it comes to evaluating morality; that these codes are wrong about right and wrong.

I would also like to point out that, implicit in your argument, I contend, is the notion that discrimination against target groups is a bad thing. (And yes, I certainly agree ) But what underlies that assumption if not a moral judgment? Isn't it the case that the tragic consequences you so rightly point out from the imposition of particular codes of conventional morality are to be avoided precisely because they are wrong?

I whole-heartedly agree with your last assertion, the point that we cannot assume that any particular agreed-upon moral code -e.g., conventional western morality, if there can be said to be such a thing - is correct. I think that that's the great insight behind relativism and I very much agree: We must not assume that familiar moral codes are correct. However, I don't think it follows from this that acts cannot be right or wrong. Rather, what I take from the idea is that we all have a responsibility to examine societal moral codes -especially those of our own society- with the utmost scrutiny.


Thanks again for the engagement. Very much appreciate it!

Emily

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

I disagree, what is morally "right" or "true" is entirely relative. Morality is a man-made construct and as such was moulded to whatever belief system it spawned from and, therefore, can only be "true" according to said belief system, but is by no means ultimately true (meaning it cannot exist without that system). Some morals are subjective according to culture or individual, however, others are more pan-human due to the very reason that they concern the survival of the species (a pan-human concern). Therefore, it stems more from the desire to survive (and the desire for those closest to ourselves to survive), a desire which exists in every other species.

I often find it strange the way people in marginalised communities cling to morality as though without it discrimination of marginalised groups would run rampant. I've actually found the case to be quite the opposite. Morality seems to have, at least partially, spawned discrimination in that it passes judgement (or worse) upon any act its own system deems as wrong. That act may be murder, or, on the other hand, it may be sex between two people of the same sex, or sex between two people of a different race, and so on and so forth. Oddly enough both sides, both the "bigots" and the "enlightened" seem to prefer to tout the other as undoubtedly immoral and their own perspective as undoubtedly moral. Why not use reason over moral codes? Who's morality is more moral and according to whom? An extremist who blows up a building or anything else is just as full of moral conviction as those who point at him as the epitome of immorality, the devil in disguise. What makes popular western or left-wing convictions more "true" than any other? Location? The mere fact that one happens to agree?

[adorable]

I really like this thread.

As I am reading and getting all scholastic (it's been a while) - I keep getting stuck on two things:

1. female castration
2. arranged marriage

I would like to say that I believe that cultural norms make things acceptable that are not acceptable within the confines of my society. But that just isn't true.

I am questioning whether it's more about how those in that society perceive the reality of their situations that changes how I feel about things or do I see it as absolute in it's wrongness and want to "save" people based on what I morally feel is right? Does one have to come first for me to be outraged?

For instance, I watch the tribal shows on the Travel Channel. Fascinating. As I'm watching that show I am not judging them. They do things and believe things to be true based on their society norms. I watch the show and the people in the tribes all seem to be happy with the way their life is....I don't sense that anyone there has a problem with their customs or rituals.

This is not true when I see things about female castration in Asia and Africa. I get outraged, and yet it is a social custom that tribes have practiced for years. I would never have known about the practice if someone hadn't spoken out against it. Would I be outraged if the women who are forced to go through it weren't outraged? If they went under the knife (or piece of glass or dirty can top ugh) willingly or happily even? There is no way to know since I wouldn't have known unless the victims spoke out in horror.

Arranged marriages happen on the tribal shows on the travel channel. Everyone seems happy enough. Some of the guys have multiple wives. I don't judge it. Yet, when I read about Subia Gaur who is 18 (& others like her) and fled for her life from an arranged marriage, I am outraged. So it can't be that I'm outraged about arranged marriages in general, I am outraged for those that are outraged...

lol I hope this makes some sort of sense, but the whole thing is sooo interesting. "Humans have a moral sense. They think they know right from wrong and therefore are able to do right from wrong." - Mark Twain.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

I disagree, what is morally "right" or "true" is entirely relative. Morality is a man-made construct and as such was moulded to whatever belief system it spawned from and, therefore, can only be "true" according to said belief system, but is by no means ultimately true (meaning it cannot exist without that system). Some morals are subjective according to culture or individual, however, others are more pan-human due to the very reason that they concern the survival of the species (a pan-human concern). Therefore, it stems more from the desire to survive (and the desire for those closest to ourselves to survive), a desire which exists in every other species.

I often find it strange the way people in marginalised communities cling to morality as though without it discrimination of marginalised groups would run rampant. I've actually found the case to be quite the opposite. Morality seems to have, at least partially, spawned discrimination in that it passes judgement (or worse) upon any act its own system deems as wrong. That act may be murder, or, on the other hand, it may be sex between two people of the same sex, or sex between two people of a different race, and so on and so forth. Oddly enough both sides, both the "bigots" and the "enlightened" seem to prefer to tout the other as undoubtedly immoral and their own perspective as undoubtedly moral. Why not use reason over moral codes? Who's morality is more moral and according to whom? An extremist who blows up a building or anything else is just as full of moral conviction as those who point at him as the epitome of immorality, the devil in disguise. What makes popular western or left-wing convictions more "true" than any other? Location? The mere fact that one happens to agree?

I find it interesting that you say this. I am wondering if you mean the same thing as I mean when I talk about reductionism. If so, then might that evaluation be a judgement too? What I am getting at is that making evaluations about whether or not something is say, "discrimination" or not, is implying that discrimination is wrong, or at the very least that some people who pass moral judgments on others is hypocrisy, which is a judgment in itself and also implies wrongness. At least that is what I hear you saying, and if I am wrong then please correct me.

I believe that objective reason and moral discourse are different sorts of the use of the Language. As I said in my previous post, "judgment" is a loaded word. What I mean here is that for some people it can have a negative connotation. For example, to pass judgment on someone is to evaluate them harshly and by a narrow set of criteria which are unfair. That sort of thing. But the word Judgement has another meaning too - the act of making considered decisions or coming to sensible conclusions ("considered" here meaning to weigh all available facts first). And yet there is something lacking in this definition too, I think. Having all the available facts does not lead to one inevitable conclusion which reason alone can determine. There has to be another element involved to get from facts to a decision. I would call this element human will, or human freedom. Another way of describing this is to say that the bridging of the gap between facts and conclusions requires a qualitative leap of human will (See Soren Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments for my source).

It is my contention that reason alone cannot speak to moral questions of right and wrong. Moral discourse, while talking about facts, is not really about the facts but about what it means to be a human being. And further, that even the most extreme moral relativist cannot escape this human element, this qualitative leap. To say that there is no true morality, only objective facts is to make such a leap. The facts themselves cannot do this, only a human with a free will can. This is what Kierkegaard means when he says that Truth is subjectivity (see Soren Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript for my source.).

I would be happy and very interested to hear what you think Ender, and what the rest of you think as well.

[apretty]

i like context.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

I disagree, what is morally "right" or "true" is entirely relative. Morality is a man-made construct and as such was moulded to whatever belief system it spawned from and, therefore, can only be "true" according to said belief system, but is by no means ultimately true (meaning it cannot exist without that system). Some morals are subjective according to culture or individual, however, others are more pan-human due to the very reason that they concern the survival of the species (a pan-human concern). Therefore, it stems more from the desire to survive (and the desire for those closest to ourselves to survive), a desire which exists in every other species.

Here's the problem that I see with saying that morality is relative. Since you talk about marginalized groups, let's talk about some of the things that have happened to marginalized groups which have, at other times and in other places, been considered moral. Let's do the heavy one first and talk about slavery. If what you are saying is true, that morality is relative, then there are times, places or worlds in which American-style chattel slavery is morally acceptable. I would argue that slavery is immoral because it reduces a human being to a mere object and that it is wrong to reduce human beings to mere objects. I would say that this is grounded in our basic humanness, people WANT to be self-determining and self-actualizing and slavery prevents both by its very nature.

Now, if morality is, in fact, relative then the above may not be true. If that is the case then one can imagine a population that has the misfortune of being enslaved becoming adjusted to that condition and, in fact, becoming happy within that condition. I would argue that I am not aware of any such population EVER having existed. My ancestors coped with being slaves, they had moments of happiness--the birth of a child, say--but these were moments of happiness that occurred despite the condition of being enslaved.

I often find it strange the way people in marginalised communities cling to morality as though without it discrimination of marginalised groups would run rampant.

I think we cling to morality because we are human beings.

I've actually found the case to be quite the opposite. Morality seems to have, at least partially, spawned discrimination in that it passes judgement (or worse) upon any act its own system deems as wrong.

Might that not be putting the cart before the horse? Might it be that humans will find some reason to discriminate and will then backfill in the why of it, usually wrapping it up in the moral language of, say, taboo or uncleanliness?

That act may be murder, or, on the other hand, it may be sex between two people of the same sex, or sex between two people of a different race, and so on and so forth.

I don't know about putting those two into the same moral bucket. One (murder) clearly harms others by its very nature while the other doesn't. I think that before society proscribes any given act 'X' it should always ask itself "is there some compelling reason why this should be sanctioned".

Oddly enough both sides, both the "bigots" and the "enlightened" seem to prefer to tout the other as undoubtedly immoral and their own perspective as undoubtedly moral. Why not use reason over moral codes? Who's morality is more moral and according to whom? An extremist who blows up a building or anything else is just as full of moral conviction as those who point at him as the epitome of immorality, the devil in disguise. What makes popular western or left-wing convictions more "true" than any other? Location? The mere fact that one happens to agree?

Well, that last question is the one I like to pull out on relativists, quite honestly. If all knowledge is relative and if all morality is relative, might it NOT be true that, say, Fred Phelps is correct and that all queer people are Satan-spawned demons bound for Hell? If whatever one believes is true is actually true then the only reason we might have for telling Phelps that he is full of it is that we disagree. For myself, I want a firmer intellectual foundation than "I don't like what you say and therefore what you say is wrong" to stand upon. Something similar applies to moral relativism. I would argue that, for instance, slavery is wrong--not wrong in the West, not wrong amongst the Left, not wrong when it's my ancestors but okay when it's your ancestors. Rather, I would argue that slavery is wrong because it violates something central, core and non-negotiable about human beings--namely that we belong to ourselves. That is true for my ancestors and it is true for everyone reading this post.

[Kobi]

Being an operationalist rather than a theorist...

I believe there are universal truths.

I believe there is human effort to find ways to actualize these universal truths in and through our human existence.

I believe the human effort to do so is an evolution which is guided by every day life, the decisions we make, the consequences or implications, expected and unexpected, which spur us to think and act and new and different ways.

I believe this process can only occur within a cultural context for to deny this would negate the existence of differing levels of evolutions and opportunity within different societies, and rob them of the opportunity for self development and identity.

Using the example above.....when the agricultural society of our country grew in unprecidented ways, we discovered the concept of a labor shortage. Needing a labor force in a different way meant looking at options, if any, and deciding on what basis an option was chosen. For a number of reasons we resorted to human trafficing to meet a need. This decision may have met a labor need but also resulted in new, never before encountered challenges i.e. who is this new labor force, how is the labor force to be viewed and treated etc.

In time, the arrival of these new peoples evolved into new trends in thought i.e. does one group of humans have the right to buy and sell another group of humans, and what other options are available to fill the need for labor etc.

During the industrial revolution, we again needed an influx of labor. And legalized immigration became the new way to solve labor needs.

It is a process in the development of the human concept of itself and the challenges it faces in living.

If one looks at the rapid development of the economic system in China, the effects on such on its population, and the effects on its culture, the parallels of its growing pains so resemble the American experience it is frightening. It is frightening because rather than evolving into changes and taking its people with it, it is taking western concepts and actions and imposing them on an unsuspecting people resulting in a totally different experience than was intended. It is both fascinating and disturbing to watch.

As Jane Wagner once said....reality is nothing more than a collective hunch.....to which I would add......at a certain time, in a certain place by a certain group of people.

[Licious]

Great thread, my egghead side is happy, happy, happy.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Emmy

Hiya,

So, instead of flagrantly derailing any more existing threads, I thought I'd start a new one. About relativism, concerning both what is right and what is true.

I'm curious about whether you think that what is morally right or what is true are relative either to cultural context or to individual perspective. Please feel free to treat either topic alone or to discuss both- whatever interests you.

My short answer is No. There are a lot of footnotes and disclaimers, but basically the answer, I think, is no. (Just as a personal aside, I find that this puts me in opposition, often, to those with whom I'm usually most closely politically aligned- that is, the left. )

I'll come back a bit later (after I finish yet another overdue assignment- ugh, what is wrong with me???), I think, and elaborate, but I thought I'd throw this out there now and just see if anyone was interested in the topic.

Thank you!

Emily

Oh, Emily, what have you done! Now you've got me started! My short answer is no, I don't think that many (perhaps most) questions of either moral (or ethical) and epistemic importance are relative. Like you, this puts me on the opposite side of people who are otherwise my natural political allies.

From a moral standpoint, it puts me at odds with people who are very well-meaning but come profoundly different answers on questions related to, say, how to answer the religious right. I believe that once you open the door to 'whatever you believe is true actually is true' you have just muted your moral voice.

Epistemic relativism is even more problematic for me and I have positively made a pest of myself on these (and other) message boards by insisting that while we can express whatever opinions we wish to, none of us are entitled to a different set of facts. According to epistemic relativism, if you *genuinely* believe that the Sun orbits the Earth then no one can really say you are wrong. However, I strenuously disagree with that idea because it is simply objectively true that the Sun is the gravitational center of this solar system and by any reasonable definition of gravity coming out of physics, it dominates its little area of warped-spacetime.

I have a LOT more I could say about this but I'll read through the thread before continuing on. I'd say "don't get me started" but it's too late for that now.

[dreadgeek]

"...ordinarily, we think that on a factual question like the one about American prehistory, there is a way things are that is independent of us and our beliefs about it--an objective fact of the matter, as we may put it as to where the first Americans originated. We are not necessarily fact-objectivists (emphasis original) in this sense about all domains of judgement. About morality, for example, some people, philosophers included, are inclined to be relativists: they hold that there are many alternative moral codes specifying what counts as good or bad conduct, but no facts by virtue of which some of these codes are more 'correct' than any of the others...These sorts of relativism about value matters are debatable, of course, and still debated. However, even if we find them ultimately implausible they do not strike us as absurd. But on a factual question such as the one about the origins of the first Americans, we are inclined to think, surely, there is just some objective fact of the matter. We may not know what it this fact of the matter is, but, having formed an interest in the question we seek to know it..."

Paul A Boghossian -- Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism

I quoted him at length because I think this goes to the core of the matter (and, quite honestly, for the purposes of this discussion I want to keep to the issue of epistemology, in part, because it's the more tractable problem). I have often wondered if people who claim that all knowledge is relative and socially constructed *really* believe that or are they saying something that they haven't thought through all the way. If the former, then one might expect folks who believe that to, say, walk off of tall buildings. If all knowledge is relative, if there really isn't a world 'out there', then gravity should be culturally constructed as well. Yet, in all cultures, and in all times, human beings have been subject to 1-G of gravity. It wasn't until, what, 1962 or 63 that a human being ever experienced weightlessness for any length of time. Our bodies are products of 1-G of gravity pulling on us and 14.5 psi pushing us down from the weight of the atmosphere.

Now, some might claim that there are other, equally valid explanations for why things fall to the ground when dropped that doesn't invoke Einsteinian gravity but I think this is a kind of dodge. Take the two models (whatever they might be) and determine which of them is best able to deal with the behavior of various systems subject to the model. For example, the Einstein model of gravity allows us to account for things like gravity lensing where a star appears somewhat out of phase from its actual location relative to us because the light from that star is bent around a large gravitational mass (and yes, the universe really does work like this. It's been confirmed numerous times from observations taken during eclipses). The only model of gravity that can explain this is Einstein's. Newton's model can't although, for most ordinary purposes, we use Newton and not Einstein. The reason being is that Newton's approximations work well enough for the kinds of purposes we typically apply gravitational physics to. However, there is an exception--GPS. Because satellites are in motion and because the Earth is *also* in motion, GPS satellites have to take into account relativistic effects or else the GPS would be off--now, for your TomTom the amount of error isn't going to matter very much (I believe it's a matter of feet) but for military and aircraft navigational applications a few feet is all the difference in the world.

No other system of knowledge can account for this--the fact that other cultures don't *have* this problem is irrelevant here. Once a culture reaches a certain level of technological sophistication, they will have a problem that looks very much like the GPS problem and the solution will have to take into account relativistic effects. That's what I mean when I talk about a world 'out there'.

Do people who believe in strong epistemic relativism think that the Earth has existed for ~ 4.5 billion years? Do they think the universe has existed for ~ 14.5 billion years? If so, who was constructing the knowledge?