I have heard so much about ethical relativism but somehow I still haven’t understood the meaning, contrary to what I previously thought. Therefore I am taking a step back to the Greeks when this way of defining ethics was proposed for the first time.

The sophists were those philosophers who denied the existence of a supreme good to accommodate a new one: common (or relative) good. Other thinkers like Socrates and Plato never accepted this new philosophy and defined it as negative and dangerous: men were to find a point of contact that was satisfactory for everyone, no matter what the origins and the ideologies were. Now we would say that the Socratics were way too idealistic, while the sophists were more realistic because from our personal experience we have learnt that there is nothing that can be good for everyone. Using Saint Augustine’s idea, I’d say that it does good on a side, and less good on the other, if we consider the different grades of good.

Today, even though we have adopted these ethical rules we have turned them upside down. I remember these philosophers saying that our personal good was to be sacrificed for the good of the entire community. I think that today it’s absolutely the contrary. There would be nothing wrong at all: after all men make the society, so happy men, happy society. However it isn’t like that. Had men have others in mind when they make their decisions, then there could be a correlation between the happiness of the individual and the happiness of the society. Instead there is a pure selfishness that leaves no space to anyone else if not to “Me, Myself & I”, so we can’t really talk about relativism. We are using the wrong word to classify a negative way of living and at the end we have stained a high ideology of life. This way of ours should be rather called fanaticism and anarchy: we are obsessed by happiness and we use any means to have it.

There is no longer respect for legality and morality. While there is a price to pay whenever a law is broken, we are given almost complete freedom to make our moral choices. Maybe at this point religion could be the only way to refrain this impulse of man to make choices that are compromising to someone else, but I don’t think that’s necessary. I am not religious, but I still maintain the basic human principles. If I were to give a reason for this phenomenon, I’d say that whatever is happening today is the result of our inability to think. It seems to me that most people think more with their bodies than with their minds and they force their conscience to submit to their carnal needs. If we thought more, valued the advantages and disadvantages of every action of ours, there would be less inequality and more happiness. However, having this insatiable desire to have more than necessary and sufficient happiness to conduct a satisfying life, we deprive others of the minimum necessity to live happily.

A good commander in a battle field before proclaiming a strategy against the enemies, make sure he has studied the ratio enemies killed and soldiers dead. He knows there is no joy in a victory whereby the battle has been won but thousands of families are morning, so as a leader he takes the responsibility of the lives of his men in his hands. If we, as well, were more responsible of others, there wouldn’t be such anarchy. A law is not necessary; common sense is more than enough, but we don’t think hence we’ll never understand.

As much as I believe that, when a choice made by an individual strikes against him alone, there is no reason to worry, there are, however, choices of which consequences apparently are limited to the subject but when observed from a different perspective, they aren’t. Suicidals aren’t the only to have lost something, but the family just like the entire Country has lost a member and a citizen. Maybe one in millions is omissible, but in a family nuclear it’s devastating: even more when these people have their families as well.

We don’t have any ethics today and that can be deduced from the meaning of the word itself: “Rules and norms that help a man to live peacefully in a community”. We are not living fine nor peacefully. We fight each other, we hurt each other, we don’t simply give a damn about others. How can we talk about Ethical relativism? The sophists lived relatively. All we have today is 100% pure ANARCHY.

We don’t have any ethics today and that can be deduced from the meaning of the word itself: “Rules and norms that help a man to live peacefully in a community”. We are not living fine nor peacefully. We fight each other, we hurt each other, we don’t simply give a damn about others. How can we talk about Ethical relativism? The sophists lived relatively. All we have today is 100% pure ANARCHY.

We cannot talk about ethical relativism because the Sophists are a group of people, I guess with the same ideas. So ethical relativism will not work since you are relating the sophists with the whole world with different barriers and ideals.

Maybe at this point religion could be the only way to refrain this impulse of man to make choices that are compromising to someone else, but I don’t think that’s necessary.

My belief in God through the bible is necessary to me because it cautions my mind. It helps me have a rethink on my actions with the simple knowledge of God not liking what I have done.

stillwater:

We cannot talk about ethical relativism because the Sophists are a group of people, I guess with the same ideas. So ethical relativism will not work since you are relating the sophists with the whole world with different barriers and ideals.

Of course we can't talk about it simply because we don't have anything like that today. We are living a philosophy of ours and yet we call it with the same name of another whose aim was totally the opposite.

@michelin89,

You went on different interesting tangents, however, I fail to see the main thrust of your commentary.

Can you summarize your thesis in one or two sentences/questions?

Thanks.

RichyBlacK:

@michelin89,

You went on different interesting tangents, however, I fail to see the main thrust of your commentary.

Can you summarize your thesis in one or two sentences/questions?

Thanks.

Let's the take relativity in physics (it also works in this case): two people observing a plane in motion. The one on the plane percepts a different speed from the one observing from outside. There are rules that determine the speed both calculate and there is no way it can be different in any way.

There is no case whereby two people on the plane measure two different speeds nor where two other people outside the plane, calculate two different speeds.

What I am trying to say is that just as the Sophists intended it, relativism should be seeing the same thing from two different perspective and not more. In a society where a man lives for himself alone, there can't be two ways of seeing things but rather infinite.

Therefore we can't call this relativism because we are not respecting the rules behind it. It's either we find another name for our "new philosophy" or we switch to the true relativism.

We don’t have any ethics today and that can be deduced from the meaning of the word itself: “Rules and norms that help a man to live peacefully in a community”.

Since we are talking about ethics and the world is advocating for pro-choice, I want to know in your own words and definition what is the difference between morality and immorality? When do you as a person draw the line between them? Are things like pornography, trashy talks that people nowadays see nothing wrong with ethical to you?

michelin89:

Let's the take relativity in physics (it also works in this case): two people observing a plane in motion. The one on the plane percepts a different speed from the one observing from outside. There are rules that determine the speed both calculate and there is no way it can be different in any way.

There is no case whereby two people on the plane measure two different speeds nor where two other people outside the plane, calculate two different speeds.

What I am trying to say is that just as the Sophists intended it, relativism should be seeing the same thing from two different perspective and not more. In a society where a man lives for himself alone, there can't be two ways of seeing things but rather infinite.

Therefore we can't call this relativism because we are not respecting the rules behind it. It's either we find another name for our "new philosophy" or we switch to the true relativism.

Contemporarily, relativism is not restricted to just two viewpoints; this extends to moral/ethical relativism.

So, how does this relate to today's capitalist world view?

stillwater:

Since we are talking about ethics and the world is advocating for pro-choice, I want to know in your own words and definition what is the difference between morality and immorality?

You see we can't really draw a line between morality and immorality because as we have said, from experience we have learnt that things can't be seen in the same way by everyone. Therefore, the only way we have to approximately delineate a border is through the use of our common sense. Common sense is very underrated now a days. Instead of it to be seen a a natural guide for us, it is seen as something of which only purpose is to limit our liberty of choice. Common sense is that innate ability in us that usually helps man to empathize himself in the shoes of someone else. Like I wrote earlier, we have almost total freedom in the choice of our moral acts and usually there is no persecution by the law when there isn't any sort of damage towards someone else. But as I also said, no law is necessary: even religion isn't necessary. We as humans have got all it takes to like a moral life because nature has provided us with everything we need. We need to listen more to ourselves. We don't have to see that little voice in our head which questions every act of ours as right or wrong as an obstacle. But rather as a very secure guide we can confide in.

stillwater:

When do you as a person draw the line between them?

Maybe it's just me, but there are some acts that I consider immoral just for the fact that they are harmful to me. While people see these things as normal behaviour, I don't replute them to be so, because once I do them, i find myself being uncapable of forgiving me for causing so much harm to myself. Morality doesn't concern you and your neighbour, it's also an issue of how you relate to yourself.

What's moral and what's immoral are issues you should consider in relation to yourself, before with someone else. Everything lies inside us. Every religion has more than once recall the matter of interiority. What's good and what's bad, what's fruitful and what's harmful are ideas that are inside you. You as a human being should be worried to know them because if you don't you'll find yourself being continuously influenced by what's right and what's wrong.

stillwater:

Are things like pornography, trashy talks that people nowadays see nothing wrong with ethical to you?

Pornography and trashy talks are indeed immoral with no doubt.

Indecency is immoral because it banalizes one of the most intimate and improtant aspect of human nature: sex. However I won't deny that I do watch pornos contributing to its immorality. I am guilty and I admit it.

The same thing applies to trashy talks. Everyone knows it bad. As a matter of fact there are certain environments where we can't even spill out a dirty word. That's already enough to tell us that this way of expressing ourselves is offensive to us and to others. I talk and write dirty. I have done it more than once on this forum but I am not certainly proud of it.

RichyBlacK:

Contemporarily, relativism is not restricted to just two viewpoints; this extends to moral/ethical relativism.

So, how does this relate to today's capitalist world view?

I am not so informed about capitalism but I'll do some research about that. Although I have come across it during my studies concerning the affirmation of protestantism, I am afraid that, just like relativism, it has assumed a different meaning.