Moral and Epistemic Relativism

[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.