People have an annoying tendency to pay attention to the wrong things. A laser beam from outer space could hit New York City, and the citizens will run around wondering if their favorite pizza place was hit, instead of wondering where the laser beam came from. Perhaps that is not an apt analogy, but the point is there: people focus on the things that are the most practical to them, while ignoring what could be called the most important things.
This is true in philosophy, and especially true of the study of ethics. The volume of work on ethics is minuscule compared to those discussing Metaphysics or Epistemology—arguably the more important topics—and yet people have a habit of believing philosophy consists solely of the study of morality. Generally, it is because ethics is one of the only truly "practical" field of philosophic discourse.
Be that as it may, ethics is an important and widely discussed—and consequently, greatly misunderstood—field. I’m here today to try and give you, as the title of the thread implies, an introduction to the study of morality.
What are ethics?
Simply put, ethics is the study of what is right and what is wrong, and how we determine this. The field of ethics asks many questions, among which are:
-What is right?
-Who determines this?
-Is there a universal right and wrong?
-To what or to whom do rights apply, what are these rights, and from whom do they come?
Morality is derived from the study of ethics. Morality specifically tells what is right and wrong, while ethics(on a broad scale) is the means of determining, arguing, and defending these decisions.
Sub-divisions
As with any field of study, ethics is not an irreducible primary—it can be divided thus:
Metaethics- Where do ethics come from? To whom do they apply? ("What do we mean by ‘good?’")
Normative Ethics-What constitutes the moral? Is there a core principle that regulates human conduct? ("What should we do to accomplish good?")
Applied Ethics- What is right? What is wrong? This field deals with specific scenarios in everyday life. ("Is gay marriage moral?")
Now we can dissect further, and discuss the specific issues of each field.
Metaethics
Say we have an inquiry: "Would it be wrong to beat T2sux with a spiked club?" The job of metaethics is to clear off some basic presuppositions:
-What do you mean by wrong?
-Who decides if it would be wrong?
-To whom does this apply?
To answer these questions, we must delve even further.
Where do ethics come from?
This is one of the biggest ethical questions. Here are some commonly accepted answers:
-God
-Individuals
-Government
- They are objective, they need but be discovered
- They exist in an abstract realm where concepts can exist
- They do not exist at all.
Objective vs Subjective vs Intersubjective
-Objective: Depending upon the object of the inquiry.
-Subjective: Depending on the subject who is inquiring.
-Intersubjective: Depending on agreement between two or more subjects.
This is a fairly easy thing to work out. Take a proposition: "It is wrong for Loonook to beat T2sux with a spiked club." If we take the objective approach, it is dependent upon the object, T2sux; no matter who wants to beat T2sux with a spiked club, it is wrong, period. This approach claims that there are universally discoverable rights and wrongs.
The subjective approach says that it depends upon who is asking. For example, the answer may be different depending on whether Looonook or Stax is asking, depending upon moral qualms that either of them may possess. In other words, it may be okay for Stax but not Loonook to beat T2sux.
The intersubjective approach declares that it is dependent upon Stax and Loonook agreeing on whether it would be wrong. This is the basis of law in democratic societies.
To whom do ethics apply, and are ethics real things to begin with??
Two issues are important here. The first is concerned with the meaning of ethics. Do ethics apply only to blacks, but not whites, to men but not women, to humans but not animals? This is usually the province of intersubjective ethics–and more specifically, of law.
The second question asks whether ethics exist independent of the mind. For example, if you were in a town with no people, would murder be immoral? If you answer yes, you are a realist; if you answer no, you are an anti-realist. The former usually approaches ethics objectively, where the latter approaches it subjectively.
Relativism
The issue of relativism is that throughout time, what people have called wrong has changed overtime. Basically, the notion is that morals are dependent upon the mind of the individual or the culture. The former was advocated by Nietzsche—Individual relativism—which said that every man must make his own way, and cut his own path with his own tools.
Is/Ought
One of the greatest metaethical problems is the derivation from "is" to "ought". It is exactly what it sounds like: some believe that the nature of an entity determines it's actions that it ought to take. Take a popular notion, one of the most debated theological queries: if God is good, why is there evil? This can be shown thus:
P: God is all good.
C: God should prevent evil.
This is a classic example of the is/ought problem. If God is good, then he ought to prevent evil. Some believe that, given the obvious flaw in this argument, that there is no such derivation, including philosopher GE Moore(Principia Ethica)
There are, of course, other metaethical problems, but this thread is starting to get long, and we have a ways to go...
Normative Ethics
Now come the systems that we derive from the above ideas. This deals with specific systems of morality, but not their specific applications.
The "Golden Rule"
Jesus put it well. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Variations have and do exist, but they all say essentially the same thing. Should you hit T2sux with a spiked club? Well, would you like to be hit with one? Some think that this level of thinking can clear up all ethical problems. But can it?
Well, firstly, it does not take into account the existence of masochists. But the biggest thing is that it doesn’t take into account things like the mentally retarded, babies or animals, who cannot "want" you to do anything. Thirdly, what if the other person cannot give back your generosity? Should you still act kindly toward them? Fourth, are there limitations to this rule? For example, if I buy you a car, must you then buy me one?
Consequentialism
This is the theory that the moral "rightness" of an action is based upon the result or consequence of the action, on whom or what the action benefits. One can determine if an action is morally sound if:
-Egoism: The action benefits the self
-Altruism: The action benefits others
-Utilitarianism: The action benefits everyone
Let us take an example. Say you come across Loonook beating T2sux with a spiked club. Now, you are not a big fan of T2's, but you feel general empathy, so you decide to help...what do you do?
The altruistic theory states that you should jump in and stop Loonook at any cost to yourself, no matter what happens to you.
The egoist theory states that you should consider if you value T2sux enough to risk your life to save him.
The utilitarianism theory states that you should try to stop Loonook, but also not hurt him in the process, thus helping everyone.
This leads to obvious flaws in the utilitarianist's theory, as helping everyone may be counter-intuitive in various scenarios. The egoist theory falls short because it strictly depends upon whom and what you value in order to complete any action. The altruist theory is also flawed, some say, because you put other's lives above yours.
Deontological theories
The word "deon" comes from Greek, meaning "duty". The subject of this section can be easily determined—it deals with the concept of whether or not we have any sort of duty. Immanuel Kant advocated duty based ethics: "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end." (Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals) He's basically saying that people should not be your means toward a selfish end, they should be your end, and the focus of your ethical principles.
If you have bread, and there is a starving man, should you feed him? Inversely, if you are starving, it is the other man's duty to feed you.
The biggest argument against this goes back to metaethics: who is to determine which people have a duty to whom, and why, and for what.
Applied Ethics
This is the final section of ethics, and is rather simple. Using systems of normative ethics, you can determine what is moral or immoral. Abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage, et al.
Well, that’s it for this thread. Next, ljossberir will be informing us on the subjects of Metaphysics and epistemology. Until then, go see Star Wars. It was good.
This is good, a good introduction. A few minor points:
Quote from T2sux »
-Who determines this? . . . -Who decides if it would be wrong? . . . Who creates ethics?
I don't think you should use the word "who" here. In the vast majority of accepted Ethical theories, there is not a being that creates ethics/decides on moral issues, but some sort of rule. I'd change it to "what."
Quote from T2sux »
Relativism
The issue of relativism is that throughout time, what people have called wrong has changed overtime. Basically, the notion is that morals are dependent upon the mind of the individual or the culture. The former was advocated by Nietzsche—Individual relativism—which said that every man must make his own way, and cut his own path with his own tools.
You really need to distinguish here between cultural and ethical relativism. Cultural relativism is basically what you put in your first sentence, the idea that various cultures throughout time and space have held different morals. This has nothing to do with morality or ethics. Ethical or normative relativism is "the notion that morals are dependent upon the mind of the individual or the culture."
Jesus put it well. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Variations have and do exist, but they all say essentially the same thing. Should you hit T2sux with a spiked club? Well, would you like to be hit with one? Some think that this level of thinking can clear up all ethical problems. But can it?
I don't think you should use the word "who" here. In the vast majority of accepted Ethical theories, there is not a being that creates ethics/decides on moral issues, but some sort of rule. I'd change it to "what."
When I was making the thread I was wondering about that, but I chose 'who' for a few reasons. First, between theists and relativists(ie, two of the most prominent theorists), many believe that ethics are "created" by either a deity or by people(be they individuals or society). People like Mill and Kant did not lay out specific moral frameworks, but said how the individual could determine the morality of an action(in Mill's case, it was by the Utilitarianism model, where Kant advocated duty-based ethics)--in either case, they still said the the individual must decide what is moral based on those frameworks. In my research, with few exceptions(Plato, etc), people have generally believed that morals are created by either men or Gods. However, in light of your valid objection, I changed it to "Where fo ethics come from," for more clarity.
You really need to distinguish here between cultural and ethical relativism. Cultural relativism is basically what you put in your first sentence, the idea that various cultures throughout time and space have held different morals. This has nothing to do with morality or ethics. Ethical or normative relativism is "the notion that morals are dependent upon the mind of the individual or the culture."
Ugh, I hate relativist theory--and consequently, I read very little on it. Thank you for the information.
When I was making the thread I was wondering about that, but I chose 'who' for a few reasons. First, between theists and relativists(ie, two of the most prominent theorists)
I was under the impression that theistic and relativistic ethics were not widely acccepted in the modern philosophical community, as they have hard-to-defeat objections against them (moreso for relativism than theism). I could be wrong, though.
Quote from T2sux »
People like Mill and Kant did not lay out specific moral frameworks, but said how the individual could determine the morality of an action(in Mill's case, it was by the Utilitarianism model, where Kant advocated duty-based ethics)--in either case, they still said the the individual must decide what is moral based on those frameworks.
Although they both did say that individuals should apply their theories, they did not believe that morality stemmed from individuals. Mill believed that all ethics stemmed from the only intrinsically valuable thing (it's an open question what this was; some say pleasure, some say eudaimonea). Kant said it came from rationality.
Quote from T2sux »
Ugh, I hate relativist theory--and consequently, I read very little on it. Thank you for the information.
Applying the golden rule requires that the person making the moral judgement empathize with, project himself into, the role one of the people involved in the situation in question. Agreed? Now let's apply that to the situations you claim a morality based soley on the golden rule can not account for...
With regard to masochists, if you have person A inflicting pain on person B, and you ask person C to make a moral decision, the decision will depend on whether or not person C is a masochist.
With regard to the mentally handicapped, animals, etc. The golden rule can not be applied because a normal, healthy person can not accurately project himself into these roles. That means that these situations are not a question of morality at all. But then again, some people who do adhere to the golden rule would argue that they can empathize with these parties. Now, I'm sure you could come up with a hundred different situations where a mentally retarded person or an animal or whatever is being hurt, and you would argue it obviously is a moral question. It's all relative to a particular person's opinion.
Quote from T2sux »
Ugh, I hate relativist theory--and consequently, I read very little on it. Thank you for the information.
Quote from Nex3 »
Relitavist theory really is awful.
Depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to come up with a theory of morality that maximizes the benefit to "society as a whole" (I love that phrase. ) then relativism is probably not it.
But if your goal is to accurately describe how morals work in the real world, IMHO, relativism is the obvious answer.
Depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to come up with a theory of morality that maximizes the benefit to "society as a whole" (I love that phrase. ) then relativism is probably not it.
But if your goal is to accurately describe how morals work in the real world, IMHO, relativism is the obvious answer.
Goal? I was reffering to normative relativist theory. The theory that states that "an act is right iff it is mandated by the culture/individual/voices in the head". Anyone who would say that that theory is correct is someone you want to keep away from yourself and your loved ones. Perhaps a similar theory might describe how people commonly think of morals, but that would be phrased more like "people generally act as though an action is right iff it is mandated by the culture/whatever." Another reason to make the distinction in the main post between normative and descriptive relativism :rolleyes:.
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Goal? I was reffering to normative relativist theory. The theory that states that "an act is right iff it is mandated by the culture/individual/voices in the head". Anyone who would say that that theory is correct is someone you want to keep away from yourself and your loved ones. Perhaps a similar theory might describe how people commonly think of morals, but that would be phrased more like "people generally act as though an action is right iff it is mandated by the culture/whatever." Another reason to make the distinction in the main post between normative and descriptive relativism :rolleyes:.
Emphasis mine. So are you saying that the theory does not accurately describe how morality works in the real world?
Do you think criminals believe that what they do is "wrong"? Some do, but most simply live by a different axiom than the rest of us. They believe that being stronger (whether innately, or through the use of weapons) than the people around you gives you the right to take whatever you want from them.
Like I said, it depends in what your goal is. You refer to the "correct" way, and keeping your family away from such people. I didn't say this is the way things should be, I'm saying this is the way things are.
Emphasis mine. So are you saying that the theory does not accurately describe how morality works in the real world?
Well... in a way, yes. I'm not sure what you mean by a morality "working in the real world," but if you mean that that morality is true, than no, relativism is not true. An act is not right iff it is mandated by the culture. If that were the case, then the Nazis did absolutely nothing wrong, and if my culture mandated that I come to your house and eat your children, then I would be morally obliged to do that.
On the other hand, if you mean by a morality working in the real world that people believe that that morality is true, then that has nothing to do with the theory. Just because, for instance, the earth is roughly spherical, it is not implied that the Flat Earth Society doesn't exist.
Quote from War Emblem »
Do you think criminals believe that what they do is "wrong"? Some do, but most simply live by a different axiom than the rest of us. They believe that being stronger (whether innately, or through the use of weapons) than the people around you gives you the right to take whatever you want from them.
Sure, this is almost definitely true. But this doesn't make normative relativism true; you're just pointing out that individual relativism, the theory that different individuals hold different things to be morally right, is true.
Quote from War Emblem »
Like I said, it depends in what your goal is. You refer to the "correct" way, and keeping your family away from such people. I didn't say this is the way things should be, I'm saying this is the way things are.
Yes, this is the difference between normative relativism (which mandates what is correct) and cultural relativism (which describes what is).
For example, if you were in a town with no people, would murder be immoral? If you answer yes, you are a realist; if you answer no, you are an anti-realist. The former usually approaches ethics objectively, where the latter approaches it subjectively.
This is actually a good example I have with ethical problems... they often aren't defined enough. For example: If there's no people in the town, how do you murder the lack of person? Such an action is neither good nor bad; it is by definition impossable. What does that make me, by your standards?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05 Cool stuff here.
This is actually a good example I have with ethical problems... they often aren't defined enough. For example: If there's no people in the town, how do you murder the lack of person? Such an action is neither good nor bad; it is by definition impossable. What does that make me, by your standards?
A philosopher ;).
Seriously, if the ethical problems aren't well-defined, they should be. It would be an issue with the problems (or maybe the person posing the problems), not with ethics itself. Point out stuff that isn't clear or is badly defined; try to help the person define it better.
You can't murder the lack of person, but you can conceive the idea of murder, and that is what you judge to be good or bad. The point this breaks down is with somebody who does not know of the existence of other people. Stupid hypothetical situations :).
That's am interesting point... but, isn't the answer in the question, then? The question 'is murder is immoral' makes the position of the person irrelevent, whereas the question 'is it immoral to murder everyone around me' would make the position of the person relevant. I think, taken objectively, the difference between a realist and an anti-realist would only be in the question.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05 Cool stuff here.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is true in philosophy, and especially true of the study of ethics. The volume of work on ethics is minuscule compared to those discussing Metaphysics or Epistemology—arguably the more important topics—and yet people have a habit of believing philosophy consists solely of the study of morality. Generally, it is because ethics is one of the only truly "practical" field of philosophic discourse.
Be that as it may, ethics is an important and widely discussed—and consequently, greatly misunderstood—field. I’m here today to try and give you, as the title of the thread implies, an introduction to the study of morality.
What are ethics?
Simply put, ethics is the study of what is right and what is wrong, and how we determine this. The field of ethics asks many questions, among which are:
-What is right?
-Who determines this?
-Is there a universal right and wrong?
-To what or to whom do rights apply, what are these rights, and from whom do they come?
Morality is derived from the study of ethics. Morality specifically tells what is right and wrong, while ethics(on a broad scale) is the means of determining, arguing, and defending these decisions.
Sub-divisions
As with any field of study, ethics is not an irreducible primary—it can be divided thus:
Metaethics- Where do ethics come from? To whom do they apply? ("What do we mean by ‘good?’")
Normative Ethics-What constitutes the moral? Is there a core principle that regulates human conduct? ("What should we do to accomplish good?")
Applied Ethics- What is right? What is wrong? This field deals with specific scenarios in everyday life. ("Is gay marriage moral?")
Now we can dissect further, and discuss the specific issues of each field.
Metaethics
Say we have an inquiry: "Would it be wrong to beat T2sux with a spiked club?" The job of metaethics is to clear off some basic presuppositions:
-What do you mean by wrong?
-Who decides if it would be wrong?
-To whom does this apply?
To answer these questions, we must delve even further.
Where do ethics come from?
This is one of the biggest ethical questions. Here are some commonly accepted answers:
-God
-Individuals
-Government
- They are objective, they need but be discovered
- They exist in an abstract realm where concepts can exist
- They do not exist at all.
Objective vs Subjective vs Intersubjective
-Objective: Depending upon the object of the inquiry.
-Subjective: Depending on the subject who is inquiring.
-Intersubjective: Depending on agreement between two or more subjects.
This is a fairly easy thing to work out. Take a proposition: "It is wrong for Loonook to beat T2sux with a spiked club." If we take the objective approach, it is dependent upon the object, T2sux; no matter who wants to beat T2sux with a spiked club, it is wrong, period. This approach claims that there are universally discoverable rights and wrongs.
The subjective approach says that it depends upon who is asking. For example, the answer may be different depending on whether Looonook or Stax is asking, depending upon moral qualms that either of them may possess. In other words, it may be okay for Stax but not Loonook to beat T2sux.
The intersubjective approach declares that it is dependent upon Stax and Loonook agreeing on whether it would be wrong. This is the basis of law in democratic societies.
To whom do ethics apply, and are ethics real things to begin with??
Two issues are important here. The first is concerned with the meaning of ethics. Do ethics apply only to blacks, but not whites, to men but not women, to humans but not animals? This is usually the province of intersubjective ethics–and more specifically, of law.
The second question asks whether ethics exist independent of the mind. For example, if you were in a town with no people, would murder be immoral? If you answer yes, you are a realist; if you answer no, you are an anti-realist. The former usually approaches ethics objectively, where the latter approaches it subjectively.
Relativism
The issue of relativism is that throughout time, what people have called wrong has changed overtime. Basically, the notion is that morals are dependent upon the mind of the individual or the culture. The former was advocated by Nietzsche—Individual relativism—which said that every man must make his own way, and cut his own path with his own tools.
Is/Ought
One of the greatest metaethical problems is the derivation from "is" to "ought". It is exactly what it sounds like: some believe that the nature of an entity determines it's actions that it ought to take. Take a popular notion, one of the most debated theological queries: if God is good, why is there evil? This can be shown thus:
P: God is all good.
C: God should prevent evil.
This is a classic example of the is/ought problem. If God is good, then he ought to prevent evil. Some believe that, given the obvious flaw in this argument, that there is no such derivation, including philosopher GE Moore(Principia Ethica)
There are, of course, other metaethical problems, but this thread is starting to get long, and we have a ways to go...
Normative Ethics
Now come the systems that we derive from the above ideas. This deals with specific systems of morality, but not their specific applications.
The "Golden Rule"
Jesus put it well. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Variations have and do exist, but they all say essentially the same thing. Should you hit T2sux with a spiked club? Well, would you like to be hit with one? Some think that this level of thinking can clear up all ethical problems. But can it?
Well, firstly, it does not take into account the existence of masochists. But the biggest thing is that it doesn’t take into account things like the mentally retarded, babies or animals, who cannot "want" you to do anything. Thirdly, what if the other person cannot give back your generosity? Should you still act kindly toward them? Fourth, are there limitations to this rule? For example, if I buy you a car, must you then buy me one?
Consequentialism
This is the theory that the moral "rightness" of an action is based upon the result or consequence of the action, on whom or what the action benefits. One can determine if an action is morally sound if:
-Egoism: The action benefits the self
-Altruism: The action benefits others
-Utilitarianism: The action benefits everyone
Let us take an example. Say you come across Loonook beating T2sux with a spiked club. Now, you are not a big fan of T2's, but you feel general empathy, so you decide to help...what do you do?
The altruistic theory states that you should jump in and stop Loonook at any cost to yourself, no matter what happens to you.
The egoist theory states that you should consider if you value T2sux enough to risk your life to save him.
The utilitarianism theory states that you should try to stop Loonook, but also not hurt him in the process, thus helping everyone.
This leads to obvious flaws in the utilitarianist's theory, as helping everyone may be counter-intuitive in various scenarios. The egoist theory falls short because it strictly depends upon whom and what you value in order to complete any action. The altruist theory is also flawed, some say, because you put other's lives above yours.
Deontological theories
The word "deon" comes from Greek, meaning "duty". The subject of this section can be easily determined—it deals with the concept of whether or not we have any sort of duty. Immanuel Kant advocated duty based ethics: "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end." (Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals) He's basically saying that people should not be your means toward a selfish end, they should be your end, and the focus of your ethical principles.
If you have bread, and there is a starving man, should you feed him? Inversely, if you are starving, it is the other man's duty to feed you.
The biggest argument against this goes back to metaethics: who is to determine which people have a duty to whom, and why, and for what.
Applied Ethics
This is the final section of ethics, and is rather simple. Using systems of normative ethics, you can determine what is moral or immoral. Abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage, et al.
Well, that’s it for this thread. Next, ljossberir will be informing us on the subjects of Metaphysics and epistemology. Until then, go see Star Wars. It was good.
In a relativist framework, yes.
Applying the golden rule requires that the person making the moral judgement empathize with, project himself into, the role one of the people involved in the situation in question. Agreed? Now let's apply that to the situations you claim a morality based soley on the golden rule can not account for...
With regard to masochists, if you have person A inflicting pain on person B, and you ask person C to make a moral decision, the decision will depend on whether or not person C is a masochist.
With regard to the mentally handicapped, animals, etc. The golden rule can not be applied because a normal, healthy person can not accurately project himself into these roles. That means that these situations are not a question of morality at all. But then again, some people who do adhere to the golden rule would argue that they can empathize with these parties. Now, I'm sure you could come up with a hundred different situations where a mentally retarded person or an animal or whatever is being hurt, and you would argue it obviously is a moral question. It's all relative to a particular person's opinion.
Depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to come up with a theory of morality that maximizes the benefit to "society as a whole" (I love that phrase. ) then relativism is probably not it.
But if your goal is to accurately describe how morals work in the real world, IMHO, relativism is the obvious answer.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Emphasis mine. So are you saying that the theory does not accurately describe how morality works in the real world?
Do you think criminals believe that what they do is "wrong"? Some do, but most simply live by a different axiom than the rest of us. They believe that being stronger (whether innately, or through the use of weapons) than the people around you gives you the right to take whatever you want from them.
Like I said, it depends in what your goal is. You refer to the "correct" way, and keeping your family away from such people. I didn't say this is the way things should be, I'm saying this is the way things are.
On the other hand, if you mean by a morality working in the real world that people believe that that morality is true, then that has nothing to do with the theory. Just because, for instance, the earth is roughly spherical, it is not implied that the Flat Earth Society doesn't exist. Sure, this is almost definitely true. But this doesn't make normative relativism true; you're just pointing out that individual relativism, the theory that different individuals hold different things to be morally right, is true. Yes, this is the difference between normative relativism (which mandates what is correct) and cultural relativism (which describes what is). Well... in a way, yes. I'm not sure what you mean by a morality "working in the real world," but if you mean that that morality is true, than no, relativism is not true. An act is not right iff it is mandated by the culture. If that were the case, then the Nazis did absolutely nothing wrong, and if my culture mandated that I come to your house and eat your children, then I would be morally obliged to do that.
This is actually a good example I have with ethical problems... they often aren't defined enough. For example: If there's no people in the town, how do you murder the lack of person? Such an action is neither good nor bad; it is by definition impossable. What does that make me, by your standards?
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05
Cool stuff here.
Seriously, if the ethical problems aren't well-defined, they should be. It would be an issue with the problems (or maybe the person posing the problems), not with ethics itself. Point out stuff that isn't clear or is badly defined; try to help the person define it better. A philosopher ;).
That's am interesting point... but, isn't the answer in the question, then? The question 'is murder is immoral' makes the position of the person irrelevent, whereas the question 'is it immoral to murder everyone around me' would make the position of the person relevant. I think, taken objectively, the difference between a realist and an anti-realist would only be in the question.
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05
Cool stuff here.