Is it really so bad to give in to hatred and black and white morality?

[breadisfunny]

this thread feels so edgy.

[Dezerte]

That's not against moral relativism. That is moral relativism. Moral relativism isn't the idea that morality does not exist and everything is moral; it's the idea that you cannot judge a moral system outside of its context, and that there are no universal truths. Even the most basic moral tenets like "do no unnecessary, nonconsensual harm" exist within a shared context, and it's that shared context that justifies them, even if that context is "the human condition"; that we're all single, unique, sentient beings, with a limited lifespan. If we find a way to change that, we'd potentially need to reconsider some of those tenets (and there's plenty of sci-fi that deals with such possibilities). Moral relativism is the idea that morality is contextual; that we all share some context, by virtue of all being human beings, doesn't argue against that.

Right, so with moral relativism we do find & see some commonality e.g. murder is often deemed immoral. This seems to suggest, at the very least that we don't have absolute moral relativism, and that there are some levels or degrees of moral "truths" (not true in the typical sense, but something that seems more common/occur more often i.e. recurring themes in laws in history).

Maybe I'm just not using the correct terms here, so I'm not saying moral relativism is incorrect, nor am I saying that objective morality is correct - just to be clear.

[Dsonsion]

I knew it was you. You should read a book. I'd tell you to go out but it's not a good idea these days.

[downnola]

Moral relativism absolutely is about giving the benefit of the doubt to people who act in opposition of your moral values because you pause to doubt your own values just because the person doing the act might have different moral values.

Here's my favorite part from that link:

g. Moral Relativism
Moral relativism has been identified with all the above positions; and no formula can capture all the ways the term is used by both its advocates and its critics. But it is possible to articulate a position that most who call themselves moral relativists would endorse.

1. Moral judgments are true or false and actions are right or wrong only relative to some particular standpoint (usually the moral framework of a specific community).

2. No standpoint can be proved objectively superior to any other.

According to this view, “slavery is unjust” is true relative to the moral framework of most 21st century Norwegians, but it is false relative to the moral perspective of most white Americans in South Carolina in the 18th century. Regarding the second clause in the definition, moral philosophers from the time of Plato have sought to demonstrate the objective correctness (and hence the superiority) of a given moral outlook by showing how it conforms to God’s will, or corresponds to a metaphysical moral order, or is entailed by dictates of Reason, or accords with basic intuitions, or best meets the needs of human nature. According to the moral relativist, all such attempts fail, for they all rest on premises that belong to the standpoint being defended and need not be accepted by people who do not share that point of view.

Thus, a critic of slavery could no doubt prove the truth of what she says to anyone who accepts her basic premises—for example, that all races are equally human, and that all human beings should enjoy the same basic rights. But the argument will not convince someone who denies these premises. To them, such a “proof” of slavery’s wrongness will appear question begging, and they can reject it without being inconsistent or irrational.

The fact that one moral outlook cannot be conclusively proved superior to another does not mean, however, that it cannot be judged superior; nor does it imply that one cannot give reasons for preferring it. Gilbert Harman, for instance, holds that he can consistently affirm basic tenets of liberal morality while recognizing that his reasons for doing so may not be “motivating reasons” to someone belonging to a different moral culture, and so will have no persuasive power. A moderate moral relativist like David Wong argues that some moralities are better than others on the grounds that they better serve the needs and purposes that people in all cultures share. But within the parameters imposed by the common human condition, significant variation in moral outlook is possible. For instance, between the individualistic ways of thinking that are characteristic of the modern West and the community-centered outlooks more typical of Asia—to take an example Wong considers in depth—one can express a preference, but one cannot justify it by appealing to neutral criteria of superiority. Thomas Scanlon, an even milder kind of relativist, also defends the idea that one can view another society’s moral norms as worthy of respect while still having cogent reasons for preferring one’s own.

Moral relativists typically relativize the truth of moral judgments to cultures, which may encompass an entire society or historical period (China, Victorian England) but can also designate a subculture within a society (the Pennsylvania Amish, urban street gangs). In principle, the standpoint in question could be narrowed to that of a single individual, in which case, the relativism becomes a form of moral subjectivism. But this is not a widely held position since it seems to reduce to the idea that whatever an individual believes to be right is right, and that would seem to undermine the whole idea of morality.

Isn't this essentially your position? It's one thing to make the claim that certain acts are just or unjust relative to the culture or time period they come from, but it's another to claim that we can't judge an act moral or immoral because of it. Otherwise, we have no real argument against racism, bigotry, human sacrifice, and slavery. The more we understand the world and ourselves, it becomes possible to not only prove that racism is morally and philosophically bankrupt but also scientifically absurd (the genome project, for example). To suggest otherwise, simply because 18th century Southern Americans disagreed, is suggesting that there are no grounds for moral judgments at all.

[Endus]

Right, so with moral relativism we do find & see some commonality e.g. murder is often deemed immoral. This seems to suggest, at the very least that we don't have absolute moral relativism, and that there are some levels or degrees of moral "truths" (not true in the typical sense, but something that seems more common/occur more often i.e. recurring themes in laws in history).

Maybe I'm just not using the correct terms here, so I'm not saying moral relativism is incorrect, nor am I saying that objective morality is correct - just to be clear.

You're not using the correct terms; there's no such thing as "absolute moral relativism". Moral relativism isn't an argument that morality does not exist or cannot be evaluated. Just that it's contextual, and there are vanishingly few moral absolutes.

Yes, I suppose I do promote utilitarian approach, but not in the way that you probably interpreted it.

Torturing the orphan because it is the only way to feed ten thousand other orphans is still an Evil act even if it would result in more Good than Evil from strictly utilitarian point of view. What I'm arguing for is that the person who did the torturing should be applauded for their efforts to feed the hungry while they are put in front of a firing squad.

Which is nonsense. What they did was either moral, or not. Either what they did was moral, and they should be applauded, no firing squad. Or it was immoral, and they deserve no applause, and deserve the firing squad. You can't have it both ways, and you're trying to.

A serial killer who butchers women because he thinks they're literally demonic succubi is a damaged, evil person. We don't laud him because he thinks he's righteously killing demons.

Moral relativism absolutely is about giving the benefit of the doubt to people who act in opposition of your moral values because you pause to doubt your own values just because the person doing the act might have different moral values.

This is, again, a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of moral relativism. It's about understanding that your own perspective may not be based upon absolute, objective values, and thus your issue with others' moral choices might be a subjective preference, not an objective failure on their part. It doesn't say you can't judge their acts immoral, it says you should take into account their context and premises while developing that judgement.

To go back to the serial killer; we can judge him damaged and mentally ill for his delusions, which means we're likely to treat him less harshly than if he was butchering prostitutes for cheap thrills, knowing it was wrong and not caring. That context amends our judgement of his acts, but it doesn't mean we cannot judge them. We grant some allowances because of the illness that damaged his perception and understanding of the world, that's it.

As downnola said, this is why racism and bigotry can still be judged and condemned; even internally to the bigot's context, there's no real justification other than hatred and viciousness. There's no ameliorating context, as there is with the deranged killer who sees demons. And also why you're never going to convince the bigot of this through debate; they hold moral premises that you will not accept, and because they're not based in reason, they cannot be argued against through reason. They have to have an emotional reason to abandon them.

[Shadowferal]

See? Circumstances and perspective.

Im not evil.
The robber is.
But im the one doing it...

But you still don't have to...you could instead eat a bullet...
Not much of a choice, but...you still have one.

[Wilfire]

Black and white morality is how people survived for thousands of years. Appealing to "grayness" and "nuance" is what evil people do to make good people question themselves.

And yes, it's okay to hate evil people. That's how they are fought and kept in check.

[Big Thanks]

Black and white morality is how people survived for thousands of years. Appealing to "grayness" and "nuance" is what evil people do to make good people question themselves.

And yes, it's okay to hate evil people. That's how they are fought and kept in check.

Thinking is scary i know...
Your opinion? Messed up imo, because is showing a lack of understanding "the other"....not even lack of empathy but also lack of Interest in doing so.
You basically said, i have zero interest in thinking

Thats a recipe for...inhuman things to happen.

[Teleros]

also in questions that are harder to state objectively (e.g. "Blue is the best color.").

Not sure that's a moral question though .

But I'd also argue that there is some common moral ground to be found if you look through the do-no-harm perspective. I don't know if it should be called objective morality, but it could be called common morality. And if we look at the history of laws there does seem to be some commonality.

Sometimes there is, sure. On the other hand, far too many societies had human sacrifice. Carthage reportedly burnt 300 children (!) on the altar of Moloch. So "common" morality I'm not so sure is all that common TBH. Heck, if that's too far out, consider the status of women - it's only very recently in historical terms that the idea of women being actual people as opposed to property* spread from the West to the rest of the globe.

*And yes, I know it was often pretty bad in the West. On the other hand, in most of the world if your daughter was raped, you were owed compensation or w/e because you were the one wronged. Kind of messed up. And let's not forget suttee, Viking funeral rites, and the like.

[draynay]

Black and white morality is how people survived for thousands of years. Appealing to "grayness" and "nuance" is what evil people do to make good people question themselves.

And yes, it's okay to hate evil people. That's how they are fought and kept in check.

How do you have time to post, shouldn't you be out burning witches?

[Not A Cat]

Yes Anakin, it's bad to give in to hatred. Don't kill those younglings

[Teleros]

How do you have time to post, shouldn't you be out burning witches?

"Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the 'Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?’ But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did—if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather—surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did? There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house."
-CS Lewis

[Big Thanks]

"Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the 'Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?’ But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did—if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather—surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did? There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house."
-CS Lewis

He literally said "this stuff only benefits the bad guys, so lets not think much into it"

Cant you see how dangerous this train of thought is?
Whats the first thing you think when you read his phrase?

[Teleros]

He literally said "this stuff only benefits the bad guys, so lets not think much into it"

I'm sorry, but what? Maybe I'm just tired ATM but I don't get your point here .

Cant you see how dangerous this train of thought is?
Whats the first thing you think when you read his phrase?

I think he makes an excellent point. Now I'll grant you, CS Lewis is a man who approved of the death penalty, and so you may take issue with him on that score, but think of it in terms of prison sentences for murderers if you prefer.

[Big Thanks]

I'm sorry, but what? Maybe I'm just tired ATM but I don't get your point here .


I think he makes an excellent point. Now I'll grant you, CS Lewis is a man who approved of the death penalty, and so you may take issue with him on that score, but think of it in terms of prison sentences for murderers if you prefer.

I think you need to read his post again.

Or maybe black and white morality is a whole different thing i think it is...

Either way...we are clearly not in the same page

[Teleros]

I think you need to read his post again.

Or maybe black and white morality is a whole different thing i think it is...

If you mean Wilfire, I agree with him. If you mean draynay, well I thought the quote seemed a nice counterpoint to what I read between the lines (well, line) of his post.

[Big Thanks]

If you mean Wilfire, I agree with him. If you mean draynay, well I thought the quote seemed a nice counterpoint to what I read between the lines (well, line) of his post.

Yes Wilfire

If there were no "nuances" in realities i would be in prison at some point in my life.
Because i physically assaulted someone on the streets a long couple years ago.

The "nuance" is that i was in a state of paranoid schizophrenia and i was totally insane at the time, not myself.

Im not even a bad person (i think) and i never engaged in a fight prior to this moment. This was my first fight.

But yeah...everything is black and white...im a bad person because i attacked someone...
I like to think im not...a bad person.

Not everything is black and white

[Teleros]

If there were no "nuances" in realities i would be in prison at some point in my life.
Because i physically assaulted someone on the streets a long couple years ago.

The "nuance" is that i was in a state of paranoid schizophrenia and i was totally insane at the time, not myself.

I think you're misunderstanding his point. More below*.

I like to think im not...a bad person.

What you like to think is irrelevant. That said, based on what you've said, you certainly don't sound like a bad person.

*Black and white morality can, and if it's well thought out, will have nuance in it. If you assault someone whilst being "totally insane", then whilst the act was wrong, the lack of sane intent behind it makes you less culpable. For example, let's say you assault someone whilst completely sane & sober: you did a bad thing, and you clearly chose to do it - off to prison with you. If you did it whilst drunk, you did a bad thing, and because you chose to get drunk, you are still culpable - off to prison again, although maybe with a lighter sentence than the sober guy. If you did it whilst insane, then in a very real sense you didn't chose to do it at all. You might be required by law to get treatment of some kind - unless you're an AnCap, society has the right to impose restrictions on individuals for the greater good to some degree - but beyond that it's hard to actually blame you.

What I think @Wilfire is going after is not that kind of greyness or nuance, but rather the kind that says "assault isn't always bad". For civilisation to survive long-term, you have to have absolute standards of right & wrong, because otherwise you will find yourself as a civilisation going down the slippery slope, and finding out that it gets steeper the more you go down it.

Morality requires the ability to choose to do good or evil, and choosing like that requires a rational mind. Now sure, you could absolutely have a B&W moral system that doesn't make allowances for things like diminished capacity, but equally you can have badly designed or badly thought-out grey systems.

[Big Thanks]

@Teleros

After reading more into "Moral Absolutism" (aka Black and White morality, same thing)
Im not gonna say "is a crap opinion for a fact"
But im going to say "i think is crap, IMO"

Why

According to Kant, is not alright to "lie" EVER.
Why?
It seems because he thinks otherwise it would be "chaos" in the world and the act of lying would become contradictory because the action of lying would become meaningless.
He gave the example, if Lying was "ok"

then no one could ever trust anything anyone said. The possibility of truth telling would no longer exist, rendering the very act of lying meaningless. In other words, you cannot universalise lying as a general rule of action without falling into contradiction

Which makes sense in a vacuum...but i believe things are not that easy

For example:
What if my lie would save the entire planet?

The very planet you are trying to protect with your "absolutism" would disappear.

The best article i found so far is this
Is a very interesting link to pass the time reading (is not that big, kinda small actually)

https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explain...al-absolutism/

[PC2]

According to Kant, is not alright to "lie" EVER.
Why?
It seems because he thinks otherwise it would be "chaos" in the world and the act of lying would become contradictory because the action of lying would become meaningless.
He gave the example, if Lying was "ok"

Of course lying is terrible. Giving people wrong information is a huge waste of time and creates unnecessary problems. It's truly horrendous for children to be exposed to lying, once they learn about the trickery that all people are capable of then they'll soon start testing it out... Nobody likes a liar.

For example:
What if my lie would save the entire planet?

Well that's a bit contrived but for a moral idea like "never lie" we shouldn't give up on a moral theory just because we know it's not absolutely correct and could be proven wrong. In order to switch from "never lie" the competing alternatives would have to be less wrong. For example "Only allow yourself to indulge in white lies but nothing more" is a competing idea, but IMO it's not a very good idea because the better option should be to work on avoiding the scenarios that lead into white lies in the first place, as opposed to just accepting something because it's only mildly bad.

Do you think that everyone on the planet will agree with you that eating meat is morally "bad"?

Not currently in 2020 but the popularity or controversy of something in a given era does not indicate a lack of right or wrongness. There is an objective truth to the matter because either there is a true reason for why eating slaughtered meat is morally bad or there is no such reason and thus it was just a moral misunderstanding from the beginning. It very well could be the case it is not immoral or perhaps it is morally bad and the future people in a thousand years will think of us cruel barbarians.

Because if not, there's no objective basis to your position by which we can take it as "more true" than another;

This exactly, an important thing to realize about an idea like morality is that there's no objective basis for valuing it except purely through conjecturing and speculating about what is right or wrong and to what degree. A person can try to assign "morality points" to a given action but that methodology does not have an objective foundation.

you can take a Jainist approach that harm to any living being is "bad", but that's just a subjective opinion.

It's a moral theory that says harm is to be avoided and that it's possible to harm non-animals and so that should be avoided too. A "subjective opinion" is synonymous with your "current interpretation" about what you feel is true. In this case my position is that non-human animals fundamentally can't be harmed or feel pain as humans do and so I don't accept the idea that they just have a subjective opinion but rather they have a lot of pointless opinions and teachings that are based on dogma and faulty premises.

Oh and I reject animal torturing and those who create unnecessary hardship for animals on the grounds that there is no reason or rationale for doing so, not because I think Jainists have very many correct ideas.