Morality is nothing but a reflection of our human nature. The values we apply to our ethical world is a distorted image of rational agents' capacity to give meaning to something. A more proper term would be moral relativism, which explains the value we give based on our perspective of life. The way we react to a moral dilemma is based on our view of the situation. There are contributing factors that influence our morality such as: religion, culture, education, etc. These factors help shape the lense in which we view life and it's surrounding; as a result of this we are able to reflect values that set the standards for morality. Since everyone is influenced differently, we don't always agree on the same moral values. Some moral values have more significance than others based on how they impact our lives.
Moral relativism helps explain why not all moral standards apply to everyone equally. The meaning we give to them is a reflection of our character, which explains why our perspective on an issue tends to vary. Do you guys agree that morality is relative? Or do you think it's based on set standards?
I believe that it's a little bit of both. Our morality is definitely shaped by our relativism and our perspective of life. We can all agree that our upbringing and the values that we inherit from our parents have the most impact on us. With that said, there are also set standards that have been put in place by our specific societies. An example of that is the fact that our society (America) finds morally repelling the idea of female circumcision, while that practice has been part of a culture that is centuries old in some countries in Africa and some in the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteI tend to resist the idea that morality is relative, but I suppose I should admit that I tend to think of morality in the utilitarian sense. Values of character matter far less to me than ideas about general happiness, and I think it that it makes sense to assume that geniality towards one another is a byproduct of a generally "happy" society. Also, objective morality does not necessarily have to be binding regardless of human opinion, but morality will always reflect certain facts about human happiness.
ReplyDeleteThe blind spot in talking about objective morality stems stems from our differences in what we believe to be the source of morality itself.
A highly religious individual probably believes that morality is determined by the objectivity of God's opinion.
Many believe that morality is a byproduct of primitive social psychology, and that ethical values arose from whatever values seemed to be most "useful" for the good of a people.
There is also the idea of a biological option, as compassion, empathy, and community may even predate humanity, as it can be observed in more animals than just us.
Determining the source of morality may aid us in determining whether it has any objective value. Regardless, most just simply "feel" their morals, and aren't terribly concerned with their origin, because there is a common belief that it doesn't matter.
I want to leave a link to a TED talk by a modern philosopher and writer named Sam Harris, because it is quite relevent to this topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww