Moral Relativism

That's not moral relativism. That sounds like a strawman.Moral relativism would be "There exists no source of moral absolutes." In the absence of such sources, human societies must use their judgement to arrive at rules everyone can live by that allow for the greatest quality of life for all members.I find that to be a highly valid view, and much more useful than arguing over the moral views of non-existent deities.

Those cultures commit those atrocities because they believe a god who is the source of their morality commands them to do it. If they were relativist, they could step back and say "Hrm, is female genital mutilation really such a good idea?"I'd say that moral absolutism is the greater danger because it means that moral views that are wrong can't be changed. Looks like you overlooked the log in your own eye on this one.

Um, I think you're confusing moral relativism with a straw man, likely propagated by your church or something.Anyway, in my example, it was the society itself who was determining their own morals. I wasn't applying my personal morality, just demonstration how moral relativism lets one do the right thing without being straitjacketed by inconsistent, authoritarian beliefs. It doesn't mean there's no right and wrong; moral relativism means that societites determine their own morals. I'm free to judge their morals based on the practical results, not on their agreement with my god or whatever.

You lumped it in with female genital mutilation, so we just assumed. Unless you hold FGM up as acceptable, moral behavior? It does seem to happen most frequently (according to the links you provided, which I don't dispute) in cultures who are the most morally absolutist. See, as a relativist, I can agree with this. But as a relativist I don't believe we need some absolute moral authority to dictate those terms - especially if there's no reason to believe that authority even exists. Humans are more than capable of coming to a consensus of acceptable behavior that promotes the freedom and dignity of all to the greatest degree possible. In this country, we call this process "democracy".[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-20-2003]

Weak, dude. Let me ask you then - what research did you do to determine the actual beliefs and positions of moral relativists? Or did somebody just tell you what "moral relativism" means? My church did the same to me, so I hazarded a guess.No matter who misinformed you (or if you came up with it yourself), you're in error about what moral relativism means. it simply means that there is no absolute source of morals. It says nothing about my ability to judge the morals of others.Let me ask you this - why would any reasonable person advance a view that any and all activites, no matter their harm to persons, are acceptable? But of course, from your tone I imagine you don't believe any moral relativists to be reasonable people. If you're going to argue straw men it's your credibility that is on the line, not mine. To the contrary. You're laboring under a major misapprehension of moral relativism. It simply says that there is no absolute source of moral codes. That doesn't mean that there are no universal moral codes. It just means it's meaningless to say that "my morals are universal because they're from god."

Because nobody can agree on what it is, and there appears to be no good way to determine who is right. So rather than just pick one group at random, let's abandon the idea altogether and start from scratch: "What morals does our society think are appropriate and preserve the dignity and quality of life for all persons to the greatest extent?"There's a testing procedure in there, too - if a society fails to preserve the quality of life for as many individuals as it could be, I have no problem stating "that society has failed to find suitable morals." Well, obviously I choose B. If A, why then can no one agree on what those moral absolutes are - even among people who believe in the same god?So, B looks more right to me. Societies evolve in the same way species do - they change over time, and they either adapt or die out.

Personally I find it highly disingenous to compare male circumcision in any way to the awful, barbaric, and permanently damaging atrocity that is female genital mutilation.Anyway, the studies indicate that circumcised men experience a smaller chance of sexual dysfunction at any point in life and, in general, lead more interesting and varied sexual lives.I have no memory older than about 2 or 3. I certainly don't remember being circumcised. (FGM is usually done to pubescent girls.) If nobody remembers the pain, why bother with dangerous anesthesia?

Yeah, you are whining. By this logic we shouldn't bother tying off the umbilical cord. No surgery should ever be performed on infants, right? Not even beneficial ones? Doctors continue to perform the practice on young girls in the US, as a matter of fact. Obviously, it's only in those communities that are originally from cultures that practice FGM but it does happen here. Complications of what kind? It doesn't matter if they die. What matters is that FGM renders a female incapable of sexual enjoyment. Not to mention it greatly complicates childbirth and urination, even to the point of serious health risk.These are two clearly different topics. Circumcision isn't even in the same ballpark as FGM and it's disingenuous to compare them. I can imagine any purpose to such a comparison except for people to hijack the reasonable outrage people feel when faced with FGM and apply it to circumsision as well, where it's simply not appropriate. You're just riding on the coattails of people doing real work to stop FGM.

Look, I'm not trying to defend circimcision (although I just don't think it's that bad, and will probably have it done to any sons of mine). I'm just saying it's nowhere near as bad as the practice of FGM, which renders women incapable of sexual function in the vast majority of cases. It's outrageous to even compare them. I think it's up to the parents and their doctor to decide what is necessary and what is not. For many people, circumcision counts as necessary. Since it's basically a harmless, cosmetic procedure, I don't have a problem with that justification.I don't have a foreskin; I've never missed it. None of my partners have ever said "I wish you had a foreskin." In fact they've expressed the opposite sentiment. A young guy I know went in for the procedure at age 14 because he didn't want to have a foreskin. The healing was a little painful but no adverse effects, so far. As far as I know it's as useless as tonsils or the appendix. (Which is to say, not entirely useless, but not missed either.) That's just my personal experience, but that experience has led me to believe that it's just not that bad, and preferable in the culture in which I live as an American.Honestly, though, if the culture changes, and foreskins become preferred, well, that's what my son will have. My opinion on this is insufficiently strong to force me to swim against the tide. But so far, circumcision is the norm in America.Now, what were we talking about before? Moral relativism or something? And why FGM is supported - in every incidence - by cultures that hold to strict traditions of moral absolutes? So far none of the anti-relativist folks have addressed why this would be true.

Honestly I think we're getting off-topic with this, but... For some people, in order to identify with a culture or group they identify as theirs, sure.I'm not saying that rationale is enough for everyone to circumcise their sons, but to me it's certainly sufficient rationale to allow those parents that choose to have that procedure done to allow them to do so.Still, the question at hand is: Why do absolutist cultures tend to have more barbaric practices than those that aren't?

Three huge messages don't help preserve topic continuity, Rrhain. If you want to hash out circumcision, I'm willing to do so, but open a new thread. This isn't the place to do it.

An absolute for us, perhaps. I too love freedom (and hate to see my own government taking it away.)But is it an absolute for everybody? Many people would rather be safe than free, apparently.To be absolutist, absolutes have to be universal. If you just pick and choose the absolutes for your society (as the founding fathers did) then you're a relativist.

Perhaps, but Moral Absolutism is self-refuting as well. At least Moral Relativism is democratic. I don't see how a Moral Absolutist could allow themselves to be governed by a democracy.Personally, of course, I don't find anything self-refuting about the idea that morals are something to discover through inquiry and intellect, not by opening some specific book. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on why you disagree? Also if you're a moral absolutist please be prepared to demonstrate how you know your morals are universal and absolutely true.

That's not really moral relativism.Moral relativism is the idea that (among other ideas) no finite list of moral platitudes can possibly apply to the infinite number of different situations - therefore, all morals are relative to the situation in which they are applied.I don't believe there are any truly universal moral codes. What I do believe, however, is that there are universal rules for the generation of "proper" moral codes. One of those, to me, is that the moral code reduces the suffering of all persons, whenever possible. Another such rule is that those that set moral codes must themselves also be bound to them - lawgivers are not above the law.So long as a society's moral code follows those rules, I'm inclined to accept it as valid. That's how I'm able to judge the morals of another society - not based on how their morals agree with mine but on how well their morals serve all members of their society.

You don't believe Islamic Fundamentalists (for instance) believe in a god? To the contrary - the Taliban did the horrible things it did because they felt they would be held eternally accountable if they hadn't done them.Don't get me wrong - atheists have done just as many bad things as religious people. It just goes to show that badness is an intrinsic human quality. The good news is - so is goodness.