Are atheist's supporters of moral relativism?

Question

Okay, I know I probably offended some Catholics with my last question. I really didn't mean to. I'm just curious about these things. I wonder why most people don't think very deeply about issues as important as worldview. Seems pretty vital to me. Anyway, today I'm wondering if atheists generally subscribe to moral relativism. Is that how they get around absolute right and wrong? I started to debate an atheist once in a chat room and when I brought this up he bailed on me. If morality is relative, meaning subjective, and there is no such thing as absolute morality on any level then how does one get around self-refuting? In other words, proving oneself wrong. I'll give you an example. Say, a college student who's very liberal writes a paper on moral relativism and puts a great deal of thought and research into it. He types it up and puts it into a nice green folder and hands it in. When the professor gives the paper back it has a big 'F' with a note that says "I don't like green folders". Does the student have a right to be angry about the grade or the note? Because if he does then he's appealing to a moral code that he himself doesn't believe exists. So, my question is how do they get around this? Or do they hold to some other cause of objective morality? Please, no making fun. If something is obvious to all humanity it must have a cause.

Answer 1

Hello,



I'm Catholic and support moral relativism to a certain degree. My general concensus is that you cannot put the mind and values of people living in our late 20th and early 21st century into the minds of people living in the 16th 10th or even Ist century and beyond. The way people thought, reasoned and saw the world was entirely different from the concepts we have today so I think societies ought to be judged by the standards and philosophies of their times and not ours.



A good professor or historian should do likewise. Most professors I dealt with in my university years gave better marks for students who took such approaches rather than for those who just parroted back what he said, come term papers or exam time. The only catch was that you had to produce a lot of facts and evidence as well as showing many references to back your assertions and claims.

In my case I remember one example where I did a paper and oral presentation on the Rhodesian Civil War aka Bush War. For mental gymnastics and to be different I took the side and point of view of Ian Smith's regime. Now the prof and class listened then he got all excited cut me down rather fast with his biggest complaint being that he did not like me using leaders of military units as part of my references. Nevertheless he still gave me a B+ because I finally got a sleepy liberal class up in arms and moving on this situation so much that he gave a good week of classes teaching about Rhodesia.



Don't forget that you can always have other profs check your work and appeal the grade.



Cheers,



Michael Kelly

Answer 2

Moral relativism is still morality, whether or not it changes and evolves. Moral relativists still believe there is a moral code, but it changes and evolves as society progresses. I don't understand how you lead subjective morality to mean that morality doesn't apply to society.



To be specific to your example, the professor would subscribe to the same moral code as the student - because they live in the same society. Failing a student because the folder their work is in is green is wrong, because that's against the code of conduct the professor would've signed up to.



Morality still exists, ofcourse it does. Just because it changes and evolves, doesn't mean it isn't relative or subjective. And just because a morality may be seen as subjective, doesn't mean society as a whole can't subscribe to it.



For example, most people agree it's wrong to murder. It's subjective, however, because it wont always apply in all situations. In the UK recently there was a gun massacre. If somebody had murdered the gun man, they would be considered moral.



I suggest you read up on what relativism means. It's not that morality only applies to some people, but rather it only applies some of the time.









EDIT: You're looking for black and white amongst shades of grey, and you just wont find it. This isn't simple, wishing to be so wont make it so.



Where morality comes from is entirely different to how it applies to society, which is actually what your question was about.

Answer 3

Atheists can be, and are, both moral relativists and moral absolutists. Since atheism has no one set of beliefs, an atheist may be one or the other depending on their particular philosophical bent.



Also, being a moral relativist does not mean that you are inconsistent to think anything is "right" or "

wrong", simply that these things are not absolute and mandated. A moral relativist would, in your given example, have every right to be angry about their grade and the note. Since the college in question has an agreed upon set of rules and conduct (and every college, business, or society does), a breach of those rules or codes by any member (the professor in this case) is grounds for a claim of being wronged by the student. Attending the university or working there implies that a person has agreed to abide by the code of conduct of that university. It is the same as if a moral relativist living in, say, New York State had their house robbed. They are certainly not logically inconsistent to go to the police for this, because this society has codes of conduct (laws) stating that stealing is not tolerated. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether or not stealing is ABSOLUTELY wrong, it only matters that the society in which both robber and homeowner live has agreed upon stealing as a punishable offense.

Answer 4

I dont think that the word support is accurate. I personally recognize it as fact, my support or opposition has no meaning. You seem to be mixing cultural/societal ethics, folkways, mores, customs etc. Morality exists as a byproduct of society. IN your example the teacher would no longer serve a purpose in society if they refused to operate under the existing guidelines. Someone who serves no purpose is quickly cast out as a drain on the rest of the group. I personally have several daughters, I want them treated with respect and to be safe. I am allowed that luxury because I do not harm anyone else s family and disrupt the group dynamic. Prisons exist to protect society not to enforce morals. What you call obvious really isn't, large portions of the worlds population still consider women to be property or less, a few hundred years ago that statement would have included the entire world. There is No such thing as static morality if you dig even just a little ways into the history of a thing.



edit; I had grandfathers on both sides of WW2 both thought they were patriots risking their lives for their country and families. Both were wonderful loving men who worked themselves to death to make a better life for their children. No evil there, I think maybe you are the one over thinking the idea of evil. The phrase you are looking for is enlightened self interest. Children are not born with any innate sense of right and wrong, a baby could easily be considered evil all it wants is to satisfy its own selfish needs and toddlers have no issues with lies and stealing until they are taught that it has consequences. Those consequences are once again cultural.

Answer 5

I think you don't understand what we mean by moral relativism. You see, it doesn't mean there are no morals, they are just not set in stone- meaning they change according to situation (I know, it sounds bad, but do keep reading)

The reason that that scenario would call for the student to speak up, would be because the purpose of the teacher is to teach you, and to grade the work- not the pretty green folder (Assuming it's say, a philosophy class). A teacher has no right to abuse their power in such a way to fail a student because of something trivial like that.

If, however, the class had been an art class, and the teacher had specifically asked not to use bright/green folders because they were not in theme to the topic discussed, in that scenario the student wouldn't really have a say, because the folder is a valid reason to fail someone since the teacher mentioned it. (Yeah.. I know nothing about art class, but I've tried to make my point)

Answer 6

liking is not a matter of morality, so ur example is not phrased correctly. the professor would have to write "i find the use of green folders immoral/evil (or the like)". as to the core of ur question, first, most atheists are no more coherent in their exposition of atheism than religious people are of religion. second, religion does not help with the question of morality, for obvious reasons, incl. but not limited to the fact that there are many religions, that the SAME religion usually supports many widely different ideas of morality (f.ex., christians tend to be pretty decent these days but once thought it was good to burn people alive--and books--at the stake, among other highly "moral" activities), and above all that every religion by definition discriminates and so has different rules for its followers vs. others and in addition for those who are supposedly infallibly informed by god vs. others, and so teaches precisely moral relativism. on the other hand, atheism per se says nothing about morality; it simply denies the validity of all religions and related superstitions. and, as i have argued many times, it is precisely an atheist who is capable, if anyone is, of absolute morality precisely because he can treat everyone as equal. on the other hand, what u call objective morality is not obvious and does not even exist, since as we said, it varies widely from time to time and place to place. the real absolute morality, to the extent that it exists, has the same cause as everything else: biological evolution. we are a social animal and moreover an unusually sophisticated and complex one.

Answer 7

Unless Mitch is really "Tibor R. Machan...the R. C. Hoiles Chair in Business Ethics & Free Enterprise at Chapman University's Argyros School of B&E and...a research fellow at the Pacific Research Institute (San Francisco, CA) and the Hoover Institution (Stanford University, CA)," then Mitch's answer demonstrates a fairly flexible approach to the question of whether plagiarism, at least, is moral. Frankly, I've never seen an objective moral system in action. Even those who claim to follow one often factor circumstances and other considerations into their moral judgments and are far more stringent about applying their "objective" moral judgments when they don't know or like the person they're judging. They tend to get very relativist when they're called upon to judge the actions of someone they know and like.

Answer 8

First time I ever heard of Moral Relativism, a Theist asked me "how is road wrong in a morally relativistic framework?" I had no clue what the hell he was talking about. (You know your strawman is bad when you actually have to explain it to the person who supposedly believes it)



And it still sounds stupid to me. Even "you can't get an aught from an is" is utterly baffling to me. One guy tried to explain it by saying "just because smoking is bad for your health, does that make smoking wrong?" I was like, "YES!"



So, no, I am not a moral relativist. Or an objectivist. Any moral philosophy that would let Hitler off the hook is no moral philosophy at all.



P.s. Defending the Nazis? Really???

Answer 9

Louis Pojman gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions:[1]



Moral absolutism: There is AT LEAST ONE principle that ought never to be violated.



Moral objectivism(also called moral universalism): There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral

_absolutism



Moral absolutism. True. Support: One should never commit Blasphemy or suicide.



Moral universalism. True. Support: There is one rule of morality: righteous acts seek life while sin causes death(see Epiphany). Hence, morals “do not depend SOLELY on social custom or individual acceptance.”



This definition allows for moral objectivism and moral relativism, though opposites, to simultaneously exist because morals could be partly governed by an overarching rule and partly by, say, cultural rules.



“Moral relativism may be any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions regarding the differences in moral or ethical judgments between different people and cultures:



Descriptive relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely to arise.[1]



Meta-ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.[2]



Normative relativism, further still, is the prescriptive or normative position that as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.[1]”



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral

_relativism.



Descriptive relativism. True. Support: The common statement “That’s true for you but not for me.”



Meta-Ethical relativism. True. Support: “You can't judge other cultures by the standards of your own." Ethno-centricity is prevalent yet fails because everyone thinks their culture is best. Rather than thinking 95% of the world is wrong, maybe some moral discrepancies have multiple correct solutions.



Normative relativism. False. Support: See moral absolutism and moral universalism.



The student receiving an “F” in the example exhibits normative relativism. Because morals are instinctual YOU ARE RIGHT that a belief in normative relativism is self-refuting. For this reason, few atheists hold this view.



Pseudo-epiphany:

The goal of evolution is morality, and morality is seeking life.



Explanation(a work in progress):

God created evolution such that every potential outcome would result in a moral society. But how?

Romans 6:23 says, "the wages of sin is death." GENERALLY, more sin means a higher risk of death and a lower life expectancy. Hence, because they GENERALLY live longer the average saint passes on their genes more than the average sinner. Thus, evolution works toward morality.



LIFE drives evolution-the mutations that reproduce LIVE through their children, and evolution favors these mutations. Hence, morality, evolution’s aim, is striving for LIFE.



This idea was partly inspired by Edison’s words: "Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.” This largely true yet imperfect argument holds the faulty implication that we should all be vegetarian.





Post-Script:

God allows processes that He does not control, like free will, to play a role in guiding evolution. This means that there is a wide array of possible outcomes that could have evolved. This is partly seen in the diversity of morals throughout cultures, but the true expanse of possible moral codes is beyond our comprehension.





LIFE IS GOOD.

Answer 10

Is it possible to have moral relativism without religion? I'm not sure that is what you are asking, but you seem to hint at that a bit with your question. I think it is possible to establish right and wrong based on your own experiences and through the study of past human experiences. I believe through observation that people gain a sense of what right and wrong is, whether they define it for themselves or allow outside ideology like religion define that for them.



I don't think religion belongs in public schools and there are not many people that debate that. Yet, within public school we look for a common courtesy and common level of good behavior. Proper and improper behavior is clearly defined in schools, so I think they aren't really able to be used as an example for this, although you do pose an interesting point with it.



I personally support acting kindly and obeying 'the golden rule' that all religions have within them. Act towards others as you would have them act towards you. Unfortunately, this does not account for the 'crazy' people out there that enjoy mistreatment, but I don't know if religion does a good job accounting for that either. I like your question, I hope you get some decent answers.

Answer 11

Morality IS relative. What you call "absolute" morality is just morality from a particular perspective that you like to think is fixed.



It's very much like the way in which people tend to think the ground beneath them is "fixed", when it's far from it and demonstrably so.



Now there are some things which are beneficial and detrimental to societies and you'll find that it tends to be the ones which are beneficial which are "condoned" in morality and the ones which aren't beneficial, one finds are usually considered immoral (such as killing etc).



However, you'll take note that killing can be condoned under certain circumstances by certain individuals. Most people think it's ok to kill in a kill or be killed situation. But not everyone does - there have been plenty of pacifists who look at any form of killing with equal disdain. Who's to say they are immoral just because they are different?

Answer 12

Religion has grabbed all the great items and called it theirs for 2500 years.



Morality is culturally based. To answer your question you will have to ask a specific culture.



Also, I am confused by your statement, "Is that how they (atheists) get around absolute right and wrong? "



Right and wrong are and depend on cultural identity. I very simply use the golden rule with my own twists.



For instance. I don't pick up money off the ground because it isn't mine and the only thing that separates that action is the amount of time the money has been there.



After 2 seconds it is called stealing. After 20 minutes it is treasure.



To me it doesn't matter. It doesn't belong to me therefore it is stealing, no matter how long it has been there, or how far from the original scene the wind has blown it.

Answer 13

Moral relativism is for artists and philosophers it has nothing to do with reality. There are some people who may accept it. If we did not have an absolute of right or wrong we would never have survived as a species. We are in the mess we are now because of people who accept it in some way. Usually having to do with greed. As in most cases, as your example indicates, we like it unless it is applied to us.

Answer 14

There's no definite relation between atheism and non-objective morality. Atheists can believe in moral objectivity, just not that God sets what is right and what isn't.



Anyway, your example isn't really moral relativity, you're closer to subjectivism than anything. Subjectivism suggest that when you say something is wrong, all you really mean is "I don't approve of this and you shouldn't either."



That doesn't mean that whole societies, countries or everyone in the world can't all agree that they don't approve of something, just that they're projecting a subjective notion "I don't like this" onto an objective act like "killing" as if the notion is actually a property of the act.



It's sort of like taste in music in that respect, when I say "jazz is bad," that doesn't mean that jazz has some independent quality "badness" that you can easily detect, I'm saying that I don't like jazz but in a way that suggests it's objectively bad.

Answer 15

Moral relativism has no basis in region, so why to you inquire about only atheists? Are you assuming that since atheists are not governed by the teachings of the bible, you are asking for their basis of morality?



From your example, would it matter if the professor were Catholic or an atheist? Could he not make the same judgments regardless of religious preference (or lack thereof)?

Answer 16

To a degree, but not 100%. Morals are a religious invention, so an atheist would have a hard time accepting that morals are anything but rules of society. For example, I don't kill my neighbor because I don't want to go to jail, and because I am an empathetic individual. I don't go around robbing people and punching them in the face because I enjoy living in and being part of a peaceful society. I treat others as I would want to be treated, but not because religion tells me to do so. It's just common sense.



I don't believe that religion is the answer to our problems, and I think it takes credit for things -like morals-that are naturally ingrained in the logical person.

Answer 17

Moral relativism doesn't mean that we ascribe to no moral codes, we just recognise that they differ between time and cultures.

I still object to some people's idea of morality, but I know why they have that different morality.

Answer 18

Well, I don't believe there's anything to determine "objective morality," so I guess so.



There's a difference between ethics and morality, though-- professors are bound by them as part of their profession.



Most standards of right and wrong are based on compromise and empathy -- but ultimately, they're nothing more than opinions and consensus.



Not everyone needs a greater determinant or a label of "objective," though. Ultimately, you have no proof of what's "objectively" moral and what's not.

Answer 19

Yes, I personally feel that morals are relative.



That doesn't mean that they should be ignored or not observed....they should be observed.....and questioned continuously.



According to the bible, slavery was fine. Today, it is not.



In biblical times, marriage to a twelve year old girl was fine. Today, it is not.



Burning someone alive? Not cool.



What about mass production, exploitation, and murder of animals? Nope, that's still perfectly acceptable today.

Answer 20

Morality comes from empathy. Those who are more empathic are more moral. There is no absolute right or wrong, but society and empathy give us moral guidelines, as our culture changes the morality becomes more refined and complex.

Answer 21

Moral values comes from common sense.

Answer 22

If someone is a moral absolutist you think he would resist lying to a border guard to keep Jewish kids in Nazi Germany, or tell a big whopper with glee to get them into Switzerland?

Answer 23

An atheist can believe in moral absolutes. It is logical for instance if relationships are relative then pedofiles can be rationalized as ok.

Answer 24

Clearly, you only have the fanatic theists concept of moral relativism.

Answer 25

Because it IS relative.



Is it wrong to lie if you're hiding jews in your attic?



Is it wrong to kill in self defense?



Is it wrong to kill someone about to kill an innocent child?



If you think morality isn't relative... you've missed the history of mankind.

Answer 26

It all depends.