A personal morality

Then I suspect you just don't know what moral relativism is. You've already accepted that moral relativism is true. You're reacting to some strawman conception of moral relativism, probably one you got from church.Moral relativism is simply the recognition that morality depends on the situation. Is it right to steal? No, but what about stealing to feed a starving family? Moral relativism is simply the recognition that moral situations are often complex and nuanced, and simple statements like "thou shalt not steal" fail to encapsulate the proper response to every situation.You do what you feel is right. Almost everybody does what they feel is right. I don't see why that's something you would refuse to believe in. Why? Wouldn't the harm those things would do to you and to others be enough to dissuade you? Surely you're not some kind of sociopath, incapable of feeling empathy for others, right? You don't know why you wouldn't want to be like that? You already don't want to be like that. You just said so!I honestly don't see what you're confused about. Recognizing relative morality isn't going to make you do things you don't want to do. You don't want to treat women as disposable sex objects? Then don't. Simple as that. You don't want to steal from work? Then don't. Simple as that.

No. It just means you're wrong about what "good" and "bad" mean.Look at it this way. Is it bad to eat peanuts? I don't think most people would say so, in fact, they might point to the numerous nutrients and health benefits of peanuts to suggest that peanuts are good to eat.But what if you have a peanut allergy? Then it would be very, very bad for you to eat peanuts, even if they're good for everybody else. Where's the "objective" morality of eating peanuts? Good or bad? Do we say that peanuts are objectively good, and force the guy with the allergy to eat them, or do we say that they're objectively bad, and prevent anyone from eating them?Or don't we conclude that the morality of peanut-eating depends greatly on who's to do the eating? That it's relative, in other words?Don't get hung up on "good" and "bad." Moral relativism doesn't mean that good and bad don't exist. It means that determining which actions are good and which are bad depends on the situation, and it's not something that you can make universal rules about. But you could never list every single situation where stealing was OK; you could never identify a set of shared characteristics that encompassed every single situation where it was moral to steal. So clearly we're still not dealing with "objective morality" that's universally true for all people in all situations. We're still at the point where, ultimately, it comes down to your individual conscience. That's a common misunderstanding. You were lied to by your church*, and by moral busybodies who wanted to prevent you from seeing how reasonable moral relativism is; because once you did, you'd see how often people use language about "morals" to control the behavior of other people for self-serving ends.*Sorry. You did say that you don't go to church. That's my mistake - I confused you with someone else. Nonetheless you've confused moral relativism with nihilism. They're not the same thing.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Then why don't you do it? I mean, why do you think it's wrong?Do you think maybe the people who are telling you that it's wrong don't have your best interests at heart? But regardless of that - if you don't want to do it, which you've said you don't, then why would you? If people aren't being harmed, and you find the behavior satisfying and pleasurable, then what exactly are you afraid of? If you don't even want to do it, then why are you worried that you might?I really don't understand where you're coming from. There's no reason for you to believe that atheism is going to make you do things that you don't want to do. It's not going to control your mind.And if you do want to do them, and nobody gets hurt or harmed and everybody has a good time, then I especially don't see what you're worried about. Sure, you'd be doing things that other people might not approve of, but what does that matter? Let them live their own lives. Aren't you smart enough to decide things for yourself? If you don't want to be a jerk, why would moral relativism suddenly make you a jerk? If you were about to do something jerky, why wouldn't you realize it? You were born. It happens. Get over it. You are the one that has to live your life. If you feel you have responsibilities, you're the one that has to meet them.I'm not telling you to become a nihilist; I'm telling you that you're the one who has to make decisions every day about how to live and the effect you want to have on your life, and the lives of others.But, really. If you think someone is going to come and kill you just because you and a woman had a night of pleasure together, you have some real hang-ups that you should consider professional counseling for.

If you've been paying attention, you'd know that I've already said that this is an impossible task, by definition. The position of the moral relativist is that there is no brief way to communicate a moral stance. Morals are contingent on situation and individual.

I don't need a thousand-years-dead Greek to tell me what to think, I guess.Why do you have such trouble thinking for yourself? Can you? I've provided the rational basis for my position. You've just asserted, without evidence, that some smart old dead guys agree with you.

Strauss? Heidegger? Sartre?Ringing any bells? Hello?

Color me quaking in my boots.Look, I'm not interested in playing philosophical Pokemon with you.("Sartre-mander, I choose you!")If you have a response to my arguments, let's hear it. Rebut my reasoning with your arguments, not dusty books. If I want to know what Kant and Hume think, I'll read their books. I don't need you to read them to me.

Strauss. Leo Strauss is of "little significance?"You're an idiot, Prophex. Living proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Yeah. That's pretty idiotic.

I don't, really. But the degree to which the thought of Strauss has affected the modern American political landscape, particularly modern conservatism, means that it's idiotic to assert that Strauss is some kind of insignificant figure.The only person who would make such a claim would be someone trying to use arrogant condescension to cover a deep ignorance of the subject. It's a technique used, for instance, by the most pretentious rock music critics. You (if you really are a different person and not just a sock-puppet) have simply retreated to playground antics and name-calling.Do you have a reply to my arguments, or not?

I'm sorry; I didn't mean to post riddles. Let me take another stab at telling you something that, to me, is as simple as can be.You're worried that, if you embrace a certain philosophical position on the nature of morality, you'll take actions that, currently, you consider immoral.I see this as basically impossible on one hand, and irrelevant on the other. One of two things must be true:1) We're talking about something you have no desire to do under any circumstances, currently. Coming to a new understanding of where morality comes from and what morality means isn't going to make you do things you don't want to do. You're in no danger of taking actions that you feel are wrong - any more than you are now, anyway.2) We're talking about something that you do want to do, but you feel your moral community - that could be your family, or your friends, or your society - disapproves. In that case, a new understanding of the nature of morality might very well leave you feeling more free to do those things, but so what? If you only think they're wrong because others disapprove, and not because of any intrinsic harm, then perhaps your community is simply wrong about them being immoral. As you've perceived, groups of people can have very funny ideas about what is moral and what is immoral, and when you find yourself in disagreement, there's nothing inherently wrong about letting your own conscience be your guide, even when it conflicts with others. Living by your own conscience is what it means to be an adult, to take control of your life. You're the one that has to live your life; no one can make your choices for you because they don't know what you know. They're not in your shoes.Does that help? Again, I'm not telling you to live without a conscience. Far from it. But when your conscience is in conflict with the conscience of others, there's nothing inherently wrong with living as you see fit. The only consideration should be how your actions will help or harm yourself and others - not whether or not society, friends, or family approve of those actions.Like I said it's as simple as can be. There's no riddles here.

If you were punished for not dotting your i's and crossing your t's, even though you thought you were doing what was right to the best of your knowledge, then is that objective moral code a code of Good or a code of Evil?The latter, I should think. And how could following a morally evil code be something that you would want to do?

But you don't know what it is? It sounds like you're worried about nothing. For whatever reason you feel you have to meet responsibilities, that won't change just because you accept moral relativism. If you failed to meet your responsibilities, you'd be letting someone down. Maybe yourself! I don't see how that would change.Honestly? I think you're already a moral relativist, you just aren't yet willing to admit it to yourself. That's not uncommon; it took a year before I could admit to myself that I was an atheist. But in the end somebody asked, and I decided I was tired of prevaricating about it. It was a lot longer before I felt I could let my parents know.

If you knew that morality was subjective, how would what you were doing be immoral?

Didn't we cover this? Subjective morality doesn't mean that nothing's right or wrong. It just means that you can't establish objective, universal guidelines about what will always be right and what will always be wrong, because there's always situations where the right thing to do is erroneously labeled "wrong" by your code.There's no reason for you to "ignore" any voices if you don't want to.