Moral Realitivity

Lancaster · 02-10-2007

I think it was Nietzsche who first proposed the idea that morals are relative, or at least he was very influential on the subject. My basic understanding of the idea is that nothing is inherently wrong. It is impossible to call something "good" or "bad," because nothing is good or bad 100% of the time. When I mentioned this to a teacher, who was attempting to claim that lying is "bad," I offered this hypothetical situation:

Suppose that there is a man outside of this classroom with a gun. He wants to kill you. I am standing outside the door. He asks me if my you are in the room. If I say yes, he will enter the room and kill you. If I try to negotiate, he will kill me, enter the room, and kill you. If I lie, he will move on to the next room.

Of course, this teacher, in much the same way that Machiavelli's contemporaries could not admit that he was correct for fear of appearing immoral, he denied this and went on to insult my character.

Now, what are your opinions on moral relativity? Is Nietzsche correct when he says nothing is inherently good or evil? I think so.

Turtle · 02-10-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lancaster

Now, what are your opinions on moral relativity? Is Nietzsche correct when he says nothing is inherently good or evil? I think so.

Nietzche is relatively correct, as all is relatively fair in love and debate >>> http://hypography.com/forums/philoso...ve-debate.html

Buffy · 02-10-2007

Read "Billy Budd"....

Fathoms down,

Buffy

rocket art · 02-10-2007

good and evil is a struggle within each individual [Culturism, III.viii).

Lancaster · 02-10-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocket art

good and evil is a struggle within each individual [Culturism, III.viii).

I'm talking about actions here. Do you mean its up to the individual to decide what's good or evil? What I'm trying to say is that nothing can be labeled "good" or "evil."

Turtle · 02-10-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buffy

Read "Billy Budd"....

Fathoms down,

Buffy

Better yet, read Balzac's Seraphita, from which it is posited that Melville drew ideas for Billy Budd.

Melville's "Seraphita"

TheBigDog · 02-10-2007

There is most certainly both good and evil. It is the basis of civilized society to understand the difference and promote good over evil.

Looking at your example, there is a man outside the door with a gun who is demanding answers, and if you answer honestly he will kill you or another person in the room. Preserving yourself against this evil requires you to lie to save yourself or the other person in the room or both. This lie is justified, as it protects you from death. There is nothing morally shaky about this example. This however does not minimize the virtuous and moral nature of honesty in most every part of daily existence.

Bill

InfiniteNow · 02-10-2007

What about the ethical dilemma of robbing a pharmacy to save a child? It truly is relative.

CraigD · 02-10-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lancaster

Suppose that there is a man outside of this classroom with a gun. He wants to kill you. I am standing outside the door. He asks me if my you are in the room. If I say yes, he will enter the room and kill you. If I try to negotiate, he will kill me, enter the room, and kill you. If I lie, he will move on to the next room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Looking at your example, there is a man outside the door with a gun who is demanding answers, and if you answer honestly he will kill you or another person in the room. Preserving yourself against this evil requires you to lie to save yourself or the other person in the room or both. This lie is justified, as it protects you from death. There is nothing morally shaky about this example.

I agree with Bill.

Many moral decisions involve choosing the lesser of 2 evils. In many cases, such as Lancaster’s example, our culture provides us with a clear “hierarchy of evils”. While lying is bad, allowing someone to be killed is worse, so the moral choice is clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lancaster

Now, what are your opinions on moral relativity? Is Nietzsche correct when he says nothing is inherently good or evil? I think so.

I think that the phrase “moral relativity” doesn’t usually refer to a “moral hierarchy” such as described above, but to the idea that different cultures, historical periods, and even individuals have different moralities.

For example, in 1st Century BC France (Gaul), it was considered moral to kidnap a person from a neighboring village, and offer him the option of slavery or death. Burning alive was considered a moral form of execution of such prisoners. Two thousand years later, such behavior would be considered a crime.

To a moral relativist, the meaning of right and wrong has changed over those two thousand years. To a moral absolutists, either the ancient Gauls were wrong, and modern day people right, or the ancient Gauls right, and modern people wrong.