Moral Relativism and Universal Standards

Post Reply New Topic

If Moral Relativism is wrong there are a set of universal standards that apply in all places, circumstances and time then what happens if there are conflicts within the set of universal standards?

Example, let's look at the bible.

This: http://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible ... do%20wrong.

and

this:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

The first one talks about authorities and that the authorities that exist were established by God. If all authorities were established by God then so to was the authority of the beast. To rebel against the beast by not taking his mark would bring judgement yet if I do take the mark I am disobeying God as well and I bring judgement as well.

What happens when the moral code given has contradictions such as this? What is the correct response?

If it is not a contradiction then how would I satisfy both conditions at the exact same time? How do I submit to the beast as the governing authority yet rebel against the beast by not taking his mark?

That’s why I could never be an anthropologist. I’m too subjective.

I find human sacrifice appalling, though people like the Mayans saw nothing “immoral” in it—a prime example of “moral relativism.”

Morality is a concept invented by "holy" people in authority to justify their authority over others.  The source of this justification is usually cited as having divine nature, existing above and beyond any material needs or wants -- a "perfect" being, or a "god".

But to define a moral code that has no basis in religious beliefs means having to rely on either Deontology or Utilitarianism.

• Utilitarianism argues that the most important factor to consider when judging the morality of an action is the consequences of that action.

• Deontology argues that concern for individual rights and duties should be the primary consideration driving our judgments and actions.

By what standards shall we judge the consequences?  If the consequence of an action matches the goal of the action, then we are dealing with pragmatism -- the end justifies the means.

How shall we define "rights and duties"?  We must first assume that everyone is capable of knowing and understanding their duties; but what are those duties, why are they duties, and who imposes those duties?  If there is a system where rights are awarded after duties are performed, then who gets to watch us and judge our actions?  Who watches the watchers?  And if our rights are rewarded only after we perform our duties, then the consequences of that performance must meet certain standards -- which brings us back to Utilitarianism, and ultimately back to pragmatism, in which the end justifies the means.

Moral Philosophy was founded by Socrates, who was a nonconformist rather than a "holy" person.
The goal was never to justify authority over other people, but to inform political governance.

Yes, and this original secular morality has since been corrupted and perverted by those who would overturn their current governments and replace them with a singular authoritarian theocracy.

Personally, I would like to see a return to secular morality in which moral principles conducive to the freedom and well-being of humans based on ethical reasoning that is independent of all alleged supernatural sources of morality is established; one that is specifically based on a set of general guidelines for the development of a more concrete program to increase real scientific knowledge available to humanity and to use this information to further the well-being of humankind.

In essence, I want to see a rejection of moral codes based on religious convictions, and an acceptance of a viable alternative to obsolete "traditional" conceptions of morality.

I believe human-created morality, even some tenets which are a part of religious sects, provides a restraint to rein in base instincts.

I also believe, sans morality, that Homo sapiens would become extinct.

Moral Philosophy and Ethicism have nothing to do with Religion or Theocracy.

They're separate areas of study.

They might be separate—but, at times, they are influenced by each other.

All nice and well, but animals show what we would call moral behaviour - reciprocal behaviour being one, and a sense of unfairness (at least towards themselves.)

My guess is that religions have hijacked an innate sense of morality in the human animal, but just because our brains are hardwired ro experience *something* as either right or wrong, doesn't tell *what* is right or wrong.

As far as I know, the same regions in the brain get activated for moral goodness and moral disgust as for beauty and ugliness - and for the appreciation for or disapproval of sheet music, shown to professional composers in an fMRI machine. Apparently, when a composer reads bad sheet music, their brain experiences it similar to something morally wrong.

But, as Robert Sapolsky illustrates: in one instance, if you punch someone unconscious, you go to jail, and in another, you get an oversized championship belt and lots of money. Everything is context dependent.

Tell that to those who want the Christian version of Sharia law to be enforced in America.

I did, especially at the time of the Rowe v Wade tragedy.

[sarcasm=mine]

Whereupon they were all immediately converted to your point of view, and everybody lived happily ever after, right?

[/sarcasm]

I hope they at least treated you with some measure of civility.

You're welcome to read the threads.

There is no contradiction, only lack of context.

“Authority” IS established by God for the purpose of establishing and maintaining law and order. The Beast only establishes himself because God allows it. Allowing evil as a human choice is not an endorsement of it. Depending on your view of dispensation, it seems the Beast appears after the Rapture, thus the Beast is only able to appear once God’s presence in the form of believers is gone.

Also...following law and order ensures the survival of those under it. It is advisable to respect authority for the sake of one’s own well-being. This is also true with respect to the Anti-Christ--you’ll obey if you value your own life. The rule of law under the AC makes obedience to God illegal, thus lives of new converts under AC are forfeit. Which is more important--obeying the laws of God or the laws of man? For those living for God, death is preferable to disobedience to God.

Ideally, leaders God allows to become authorities would follow God's will and having to choose one over the other is a non-issue. I believe that abortion is murder and should be banned where it is not necessary to save the life of the mother. But in the USA, there’s not universal agreement on that. Does abortion constitute an assault on individual freedom? Well...not exactly, if the ONLY concern you have is women’s rights. So feminists and baby killers will argue that if you don't believe in abortion, you aren't being forced to get one. This is true, though beside the point. As long as you aren't FORCED to have an abortion, you can’t make the argument that it violates any person’s rights, depending on how you define “person.” When you apply the same principle to religious rights, you're safe as long as being a Christian and having Christian values is a choice you're allowed to make. If a Satanist were elected president, it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans so long as Christians are still allowed to live out in the open. But if same Satanist made it illegal to be a Christian, he would make it impossible for Christians to live under his authority.

Sometimes I wonder if the respect your authorities thing is more for authorities than the people they rule over.

religious morality is manufactured

political morality is lip service

ethical morality actually has scientific consensus

Regardless of a persons belief in a deity, or their lack of such a belief, there are some universal standards that most people recognize that seem to emerge in most culture's and a lot of those values are reflected in major religions, that come from different parts of the world.

Agnosticism, and even more so atheism are both relatively small impact beliefs as part of the worlds population/per capita, though people forget this in the west as both are more prevalent in the west than in most other parts of the world.

By number, universal standards are more popular by region, but since there are many different geographical regions, then it could be said that these universal standards themselves per region, on a global level, are indeed relative.