How do we precisely define moral concepts if we do not believe that morals are absolute rather than relative?

Question

If moral values are relative or subjective as opposed to being absolute or objective, then how can we ever precisely define what it means to be "good" or what it means to be "cruel"? How can we avoid formulating ethical concepts in an arbitrary manner, if values are based on individual or cultural preferences?

Answer 1

There is a problem in the assumption your question rests on--that we want to precisely define moral ethics.  The whole point of relativism is that there are no absolutes to build on.  You want to follow the Golden rule?  That's great, unless your a m*******t--otherwise, get away from me!

Any rigidly defined moral concept is going to be inherently flawed, because there is no way to anticipate the consequences in an infinitude of unforeseeable situations.  Lillian's idea of respecting the beliefs  of others is wonderful--unless the others happen to believe in genocide or child abuse.

Even such ideas as utilitarianism --the greatest good to the greatest number--are inherently flawed, because there are always situations that will cause undesired consequences--injustice, for example, or in the case of rule utilitarianism, you have these rather strange formalities you are forced to adhere to, not because it is the right thing to do, but because you fear chaos.

Complex moral decisions will always need to be made on a case by case basis.  There is never a way to predict what all will influence the decision to be made without looking at the factors that are present in each specific situation.

Answer 2

The question answers itself, that individual / cultural values and preferences would take care of the determination.  As feeble and limited as human beings are, our bodies, feelings and experiences would tell us what offends us and what pleases us.  As long as there is no conflict of interest, then there would be no problem.  When there is a dispute, then we hold a court or council to decide.  It is not perfect, but at lease it is how we human beings do it.

Answer 3

Is it morally wrong for a step-father to have s*x with his step-daughter?

Why?

There is no logical reason. Morals are born from a good reason not to do something, but can 'bleed through' into other parts of human action, or can even be 'outdated', thus making them illogical.

While morals are great to have (don't be an *sshole, for example), the above statement there is why we must needs base our laws on one thing and one thing only: improving ourselves and our culture.

Answer 4

Well, first there has to be the existence of an objective for morals to matter.  Like you said, if they're subjective then who is right?  Something like genocide/eugenics and human experimentation sounds horrible but what if the group that takes that route develops an immunity to a virus that wiped out the "respect everyone's life" group... so all of humanity would have been died off but now there is one group still living.  No one is left to disagree with their actions... and they did win out in the end.  Would that be wrong?

Second, there has to be a reason for an individual to follow a moral or ethic.  In a universe that has no spiritual aspect (not religion-specific) and has no objective/universal law/balance and is strictly impermanent and physical then that reason doesn't exist.

(in this case when you die you cease to exist, that means you have no awareness that you died or that you even lived or for how long.  That's not a rational consequence for NOT going through with an action)

What this all means is an individual is allowed to "not care" about the socially agreed upon rules/morals.  Yes, not hurting people is good and we should do what's best for society, blah blah blah (worst argument I've heard "hurting people =bad, so you shouldn't hurt people).  That sounds good... if there is a reason or purpose.  People can and do overcome ingrained gut-feelings and instincts.  If a person thinks he can gain from murdering someone (people do commit crimes and do get away with them) then is it wrong?  If that person is comfortable with the risks to himself, punishment-wise, and simply doesn't care about respecting his victim, then they will be in a better situation (gained resources/valuables quickly, potentially improving their ability to experience material pleasure).

What do I mean by "not care?"  Well, if after we die a murderer, thief, and a healer end up the same then following the "morals" even though they may hold you back or cause you pain then that doesn't make sense.  If a thief is able to improve his lot in life while a homeless starving man who refuses to steal deteriorates and dies... the thief had a far more enjoyable experience and won't find balance after death.  I'm not talking about only spiritual "punishment" but also "aspiration," something to strive for that has a personal meaning.  Without such, one can not care about hurting others and there would be no balance to deter him, he's allowed to not care where as in the presence of a spiritual aspect, he's not allowed to not care, as there would be repercussions to one's actions.

Answer 5

          Religion is the ancestor of the advanced ethics and morals of progressive social evolution. But religion, as such, is not merely a moral movement, albeit the outward and social manifestations of religion are mightily influenced by the ethical and moral momentum of human society. Always is religion the inspiration of man's evolving nature, but it is not the secret of that evolution.

Genuine spiritual faith (true moral consciousness) is revealed in that it

  causes ethics and morals to progress despite inherent and adverse animalistic tendencies.

Answer 6

The blunt answer is that we can't. If you are looking for precise *universal* definitions of moral concepts when morality is culturally defined, it just cannot be done. Not without cultural imperialism.

But there is probably no need to be as pessimistic as you sound. Just because something can't be precisely defined doesn't mean it is arbitrary.

Probably every society has some rule against unlawful killing, for example - though the nature of what is lawful may vary.

Most societies, if they are to count as societies at all will have good/bad rule about keeping promises.

If a society has property, there will usually be something against theft and moral conventions about gifts.

And so on.

So it is not precisely definable, but it is not arbitrary either. Like most things in life, really.

Answer 7

The objective of ALL mankind should be to do no harm, no matter what the culture, respect the ways and beliefs of others. To let them be who they are, in peace.

Answer 8

if the wripples of caring did not spread outward... and we stayed very self centered...

moral principals are absolutes... problem is that we are looking at a grain of sand... when there is a whole beach... is the beach made up of black sand or white sand... there really is no right and wrong... it is more like you and me... us and them... there will always be conflict between these opposed interests... even internally an action can be both good and bad...

we can't avoid formulating ethical concepts in an arbitrary manner... putting one interest ahead of another... someone has to get the shortest straw...

you said it yourself... we have to add the individuals values into the equation and assign it a value of it's own...