Moral Relativism was defined by Albert Einstein when he said Morality equals the mass of immorality when multiplied by the square root of the speed of amorality.
Moral relativism is the view that the truth of moral judgments, moral standards, moral claims, etc., is always relative to something. Ethical subjectivism says their truth is relative to, and determined by, each individual's own moral opinions, while cultural moral relativism says their truth is relative to, and determined by, what each culture decides for itself.
The fact that you have a feeling of what's reasonable or not is in itself 1) an expression of emotion and 2) a subjective attitude that is informed by culture
But it's not supposed to be. To be reasonable is to be objective and dispassionate, to defer to truth and reality and not give in to subjective emotions.
@@donthesitatebegin9283 Imo to be honest that's nonsense. I mean nothing we do is a pure matter of reasonable choice. First because we use reason about our perceptions of reality, affects included. There is no such thing as a division of reason and emotion... And so yeah, everything we do is determinated by cultural perceptions.
@@jilano8640 What exactly do you think the term "reasonable" means? Doesn't it mean "according to reason" - all the facts knitted into one-thing that logically-flows: something objective, an ideal uncorrupted by subjectivity!? In any case, let's hope you never get called to jury service - or have to read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason - because you've got a shock coming when it is explained to you that to be reasonable is to be objective and dispassionate, to defer to truth and reality and not give in to subjective emotions - while you whinge "That's nonsense, everything we do is determinated (sic) by cultural perceptions" - and first the judge dismisses you, as unsuitable to serve, before Kant's ghost materialises to tut in your face.
As best i can determine, most (not all) of our life is driven by a mix of both emotions and reason. With the exception of the selfish narcissist, most of us do not live purely by reason. We don't spit on the homeless man not so much out of reason but out of respect and love for them. The fact that we can be arrested for spitting on them due to assult laws is a far secondary reason. When possible, we help the homeless by giving them money or food. It is done out of compassion, which comes from the heart. Emotion plays an important role in daily life. It is not reasonable for me to give my money to a homeless man because I have to worry about feeding my family well and paying my monthly bills , not to mention to save for a rainy day and my 401k. Yet I do help him as I acknowledge the love God has placed in me.
I've always considered myself to be a moral relativist, but this video has certainly given me a lot to think about. As always thank you for making me think.
It seems to me that morality is entirely dependent on different environments and situations, and that they are primarily practical tools for persons or people to create certain systems of interaction which lead to some desired outcome. The morality of wearing clothes may come from the practical need to protect ones body from wear and tear, to keep one protected from cold or the sun, or to enforce modestly and prevent people from acting on certain desires. It may also be used to distinguish people in different classes from one another and enforce that class divide. Either way, there is nothing inherent to any of it. On the other hand, there are also certain implicit drives or tendencies in most humans that seem to guide us to acting in certain ways or developing certain moral beliefs. For example, most people have an aversion to killing another person outside of certain contexts (self defense, intense anger, etc.). This could be seen as a biological source for morality which then leads to a more systematized and social form of it.
Sir bacons scientific formula is most definitely this , measured value of objects or subject = re imagine meaning Critical theories that everyone else or environment is to blame for my sin. Personal feelings or experiences measured = re imagine meaning 1900s structuralism and curriculum decently does a lot of this in a very deterministic way
Awesome video. In my opinion, morality is a socio-biological construct. It is everything left that is not convenient and/or beneficial to an individual, organization, or group.
Relativism may say ethics are conditional. But does it actually say anywhere that systems that appear less ethical to us are equal to ours. This is the usual area of confusion. We can look at more primitive retribution justice systems for example and say we'll its all relative, and it is relative. We don't call animals who kill murderers, but we can say we have a more humane system, at least we want a more humane system even if we accept at some level we are still animals capable of animal behaviour.
What notable moral relativist gave the normative prescription that we "ought to respect" everyone's moral opinions? It is a descriptive claim to say that people have distinct and relative moral views, and that acknowledging this would align with observed phenomena. I'm not convinced that any moral relativist of note made some universal moral prescription in a non-relativistic fashion on this point.
I will say that the subsequent statement made by Dworkin did something like this. He said that it's a "good" thing that people have different views. This comes with a seeming universal normative implication, but aside from that he is seemingly making a universal claim about relative positions being "good" while not acknowledging that this claim itself is not relativistic, at least in presentation. What if someone doesn't find the lack of homogeneity here to be "good"? This is why I propose that we as subjectivists, relativists, or otherwise anti-realists stop using normative language. It just confuses people and promotes equivocation.
Moral relativism: there is diversity as to how to give life meaning, as to how to have a way of life. This is relative to many factors (natural and cultural). But for the individual organism’s personal and relative way of life, the organisms’s way of life is absolute for that organism. Relativism is not nihilism. Das Ende.
Moral relativism largely makes the most sense, if you hold that "morality" is the offspring of basic animal traits of protecting one's own tribe, such as protecting offspring, sharing food, cooperation, etc. The conversation gets muddied to me when it steers into religious conversations about moral absolutes that are supposed to apply universally, without context or exceptions. The emotivist position feels inherently flawed because they're based on how someone feels about something - an inherently fluid position.
I think.of being moral relativist. However, space offering tolarance towards moral views and stance which differ too far from my claims (area) I question decisively and try refute the other. Only few people find the muse to go into discussions about their moral coordinates.
Morality is great. Being moral and working honestly hard you can be successful and be able to afford haircut bill gates has in his latest videos, may be something other, who can tell.
@SpiKSpaN-ei6zq No, I'm not 10. Are you? Lol. I do what I want. I desire everyone to act in my best interest. I expect they won't. For example, I find murder unpleasant, therefore, since neither being murdered or worrying about murder or feeling bad about others being murdered is in my best interest, I desire that people don't murder. Morality doesn't exist. But I do have self-interest.
Moral values are universal. Men are not. Is correct the ablation of women just because is socially acepted in some countries? Of course not. There are many reasons to sustain my claim, many as the practitioners of ablation would find to sustain theirs. Is not a matter of might or logic, we are not discussing the enginering of a bridge or building. We dont know why things are good or bad, and it doesnt matter. Things are meant to be good or bad, its not about knowledge, its ontological. You behave good or bad, simple as.
Moral Relativism was defined by Albert Einstein when he said Morality equals the mass of immorality when multiplied by the square root of the speed of amorality.
Moral relativism is the view that the truth of moral judgments, moral standards, moral claims, etc., is always relative to something. Ethical subjectivism says their truth is relative to, and determined by, each individual's own moral opinions, while cultural moral relativism says their truth is relative to, and determined by, what each culture decides for itself.
They're meta-ethics.
The fact that you have a feeling of what's reasonable or not is in itself 1) an expression of emotion and 2) a subjective attitude that is informed by culture
But it's not supposed to be. To be reasonable is to be objective and dispassionate, to defer to truth and reality and not give in to subjective emotions.
@@donthesitatebegin9283 Imo to be honest that's nonsense. I mean nothing we do is a pure matter of reasonable choice. First because we use reason about our perceptions of reality, affects included. There is no such thing as a division of reason and emotion... And so yeah, everything we do is determinated by cultural perceptions.
@@jilano8640 What exactly do you think the term "reasonable" means?
Doesn't it mean "according to reason" - all the facts knitted into one-thing that logically-flows: something objective, an ideal uncorrupted by subjectivity!?
In any case, let's hope you never get called to jury service - or have to read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason - because you've got a shock coming when it is explained to you that to be reasonable is to be objective and dispassionate, to defer to truth and reality and not give in to subjective emotions - while you whinge "That's nonsense, everything we do is determinated (sic) by cultural perceptions" - and first the judge dismisses you, as unsuitable to serve, before Kant's ghost materialises to tut in your face.
@@donthesitatebegin9283In order to not to be subjective , there should be something outside you that your attitude or judgement is based on.
As best i can determine, most (not all) of our life is driven by a mix of both emotions and reason. With the exception of the selfish narcissist, most of us do not live purely by reason. We don't spit on the homeless man not so much out of reason but out of respect and love for them. The fact that we can be arrested for spitting on them due to assult laws is a far secondary reason. When possible, we help the homeless by giving them money or food. It is done out of compassion, which comes from the heart. Emotion plays an important role in daily life. It is not reasonable for me to give my money to a homeless man because I have to worry about feeding my family well and paying my monthly bills , not to mention to save for a rainy day and my 401k. Yet I do help him as I acknowledge the love God has placed in me.
I've always considered myself to be a moral relativist, but this video has certainly given me a lot to think about. As always thank you for making me think.
@OUTBOUND184 Excellent quote, but of course I could, as a relativist respond...but I won't bother because you won't believe me.
5:11 Great goal by Jari Litmanen!!!!!
It seems to me that morality is entirely dependent on different environments and situations, and that they are primarily practical tools for persons or people to create certain systems of interaction which lead to some desired outcome.
The morality of wearing clothes may come from the practical need to protect ones body from wear and tear, to keep one protected from cold or the sun, or to enforce modestly and prevent people from acting on certain desires. It may also be used to distinguish people in different classes from one another and enforce that class divide. Either way, there is nothing inherent to any of it.
On the other hand, there are also certain implicit drives or tendencies in most humans that seem to guide us to acting in certain ways or developing certain moral beliefs. For example, most people have an aversion to killing another person outside of certain contexts (self defense, intense anger, etc.). This could be seen as a biological source for morality which then leads to a more systematized and social form of it.
Sir bacons scientific formula is most definitely this , measured value of objects or subject = re imagine meaning
Critical theories that everyone else or environment is to blame for my sin.
Personal feelings or experiences measured = re imagine meaning
1900s structuralism and curriculum decently does a lot of this in a very deterministic way
Lance Bush on youtube has very clear and useful thoughts on the topic
Awesome video. In my opinion, morality is a socio-biological construct. It is everything left that is not convenient and/or beneficial to an individual, organization, or group.
Societys and biology are a moral construct that allows the soul express itself.
Although "convenience" is a bit vague in its definition and use, especially in this context, I think it's the right word to use here.
Yeah and we just want to in relative to post synthetic moral
Love you from 🇨🇭
When you’ve got moralism relativism like Tom Cruise in it you can’t go wrong
Might makes right.
A man once told me, "There is no such thing as truth." I said, "If that's the case why should I believe you?"
If there is no such thing as truth then belief needs to be conditioned on other parameters. Were you even listening?
@@ThePastPunditif those parameters arent true, then whats their point, fella. We trust in the ones who are trustworthy. Get dat in the head.
@@user-dy7pk8qd4x if there is no truth things cannot be untrue
if there is no such thing as truth then you are not telling the truth.@@ThePastPundit
@@tmatthews0007 if you abolish the true world you also have to abolish the apparent one
Relativism may say ethics are conditional. But does it actually say anywhere that systems that appear less ethical to us are equal to ours. This is the usual area of confusion. We can look at more primitive retribution justice systems for example and say we'll its all relative, and it is relative. We don't call animals who kill murderers, but we can say we have a more humane system, at least we want a more humane system even if we accept at some level we are still animals capable of animal behaviour.
What notable moral relativist gave the normative prescription that we "ought to respect" everyone's moral opinions? It is a descriptive claim to say that people have distinct and relative moral views, and that acknowledging this would align with observed phenomena. I'm not convinced that any moral relativist of note made some universal moral prescription in a non-relativistic fashion on this point.
I will say that the subsequent statement made by Dworkin did something like this. He said that it's a "good" thing that people have different views. This comes with a seeming universal normative implication, but aside from that he is seemingly making a universal claim about relative positions being "good" while not acknowledging that this claim itself is not relativistic, at least in presentation. What if someone doesn't find the lack of homogeneity here to be "good"?
This is why I propose that we as subjectivists, relativists, or otherwise anti-realists stop using normative language. It just confuses people and promotes equivocation.
Moral relativism: there is diversity as to how to give
life meaning, as to how to have a way of life. This is
relative to many factors (natural and cultural). But
for the individual organism’s personal and relative
way of life, the organisms’s way of life is absolute
for that organism. Relativism is not nihilism. Das Ende.
I'm pretty sure that all moral relativists believe that they are right.
Moral relativism is impracticable
Moral relativism largely makes the most sense, if you hold that "morality" is the offspring of basic animal traits of protecting one's own tribe, such as protecting offspring, sharing food, cooperation, etc. The conversation gets muddied to me when it steers into religious conversations about moral absolutes that are supposed to apply universally, without context or exceptions. The emotivist position feels inherently flawed because they're based on how someone feels about something - an inherently fluid position.
He looks a bit too happy about the whole thing.
Yeah this guy's gotta cool down, way too energetic.
I think.of being moral relativist. However, space offering tolarance towards moral views and stance which differ too far from my claims (area) I question decisively and try refute the other.
Only few people find the muse to go into discussions about their moral coordinates.
You deserve what you tolerate.
Morality is great. Being moral and working honestly hard you can be successful and be able to afford haircut bill gates has in his latest videos, may be something other, who can tell.
I must be, but don't like that I am, causing others intentional harm makes me feel guilty.
There's no morality at all. Just peoples emotions, desires and preferences- often illogical and inconsistent.
So what's the point in worrying about it?
@@SpiKSpaN-ei6zq Because I desire people to act in my best interest and they don't.
@@someonesomeone25 are you 10. It's all relative do what you want and don't expect to please everyone with YOUR morality and ethics..
@SpiKSpaN-ei6zq No, I'm not 10. Are you? Lol. I do what I want. I desire everyone to act in my best interest. I expect they won't.
For example, I find murder unpleasant, therefore, since neither being murdered or worrying about murder or feeling bad about others being murdered is in my best interest, I desire that people don't murder.
Morality doesn't exist. But I do have self-interest.
Chabad Relativism
Anyone who pretends to have an absolute morality is not to be trusted.
Their Moral Relativism for them justifies ther vile acts they do in their underground tunnels
Moral values are universal. Men are not. Is correct the ablation of women just because is socially acepted in some countries? Of course not. There are many reasons to sustain my claim, many as the practitioners of ablation would find to sustain theirs. Is not a matter of might or logic, we are not discussing the enginering of a bridge or building. We dont know why things are good or bad, and it doesnt matter. Things are meant to be good or bad, its not about knowledge, its ontological. You behave good or bad, simple as.
how can you tell that they're universal? i can't imagine any things that exist without some context, some dependent relation on other things